Suicide is one of the most common causes of death among individuals younger than eighteen years old. While psychological and social sciences continue to study the causes of the increasing prevalence of suicide in children and teens, the law largely continues to treat suicide as an isolated event. This Note tracks the historical treatment of suicide both under tort and criminal law, supporting the shift away from the traditional view of suicide towards one that more closely aligns with the growing understanding of the many factors that can contribute to a minor’s suicide. Ultimately, this Note argues that many minor suicides should be treated as foreseeable, allowing actions in tort.

This article uses Atiyah and Summer's categorisation of the attributes of formal legal reasoning in Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law to examine the type of legal reasoning process used by the courts in England and Wales when determining the second stage of vicarious liability. The analysis shows that, although remaining formal in nature, the shift away from the Salmond test has resulted in a shift in the type of form used by the courts. It is suggested that future guidance issued by the Supreme Court to lower courts when determining the second stage of vicarious liability needs to take account of this change for the guidance to be effective.

Access to reliable health advice can make the difference between life and death. But good advice is hard to come by. Within the confines of the professional-client or doctor-patient relationship, the First Amendment operates in a way that protects good and sanctions bad advice. Outside of this relationship, however, the traditional protections of the First Amendment prohibit content- and viewpoint discrimination. Good and bad advice are treated as equal. A core assumption of First Amendment theory is the autonomy of speakers and listeners. Another assumption, as this Article demonstrates in the health context, is the availability of access to professional advice. This assumption, however, is erroneous because access to health advice in fact is unevenly distributed.

This Article argues that assuming access to professional advice creates indefensible inequality. Lack of access to expert advice puts some listeners at much higher risk than others. Current First Amendment doctrine is largely unproblematic for those who can afford expert advice, and makes expert advice much costlier where health provider access is needed to obtain good advice. Those who lack access must place a higher degree of trust in widely-available information because they have no more reliable alternative. In other words, First Amendment doctrine places a higher burden on those who can least afford expert advice and who are most dependent on experts in public discourse.

So-called ‘conversion therapy’ involves therapeutic attempts to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. It is widely considered to be harmful to sexual minorities and there have been calls for it to be banned in the UK. In this paper, we examine whether victims of the practice could bring tort claims against ‘therapists’ for mental harm. Focusing on talking therapies, we assess tort doctrine in the law of negligence, the rule in Wilkinson v Downton, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and deceit. We conclude that while some forms of conversion therapy will be tortious, others will not and so this area of law may fail to assist many victims of the practice.

The illegality defence is an important element of private law, but its operation has been unpredictable. In Patel v Mirza, the Supreme Court opted for a flexible approach, which does not increase predictability. This approach was recently confirmed in Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust and Stoffel & Co v Grondona. I propose a principle to guide the application of the illegality defence in tort: namely, the claim fails for illegality if the claimant's harm is the ordinary result of the claimant's wrongdoing. It is argued that the guiding principle: (i) substantially explains the case law; (ii) is normatively defensible; and (iii) makes the defence much more predictable.

I taught torts and legal profession at six US law schools over the course of forty years (1969–2008). This paper describes my efforts to incorporate socio-legal studies and critical legal studies into my teaching and my reflections on how successful this was.

Twenty years after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, where are we in our understanding of the relationship between tort and human rights? This paper argues that we are not as far along in our understanding as we could be. The reason for that has been the methodology we used to understand the relationship, focused as it was around remedies, limitation and causation. This paper proposes a new approach, based around the right rather than the remedy. It aims to theorise one particular cause of action – the duty in Osman v United Kingdom – to exemplify this approach. For English lawyers, who have historically used the framework of the forms of action to understand our own law, it is argued that this a good way to comprehend the European jurisprudence.

Sixty years have passed since occupiers in England and Wales were placed under a statutory duty to keep visitors to occupied premises reasonably safe. The legislation, however, did not detail the exact operation of this duty of care. The case law, expected to fill in the gaps, has arguably developed without sufficient consistency and/or predictability. This apparent confusion can be remedied through applying a systematic test to the question of whether a breach of duty has occurred. The test follows the verification that the case falls within the field of occupiers’ liability because of the presence of a danger attributable to the state of the premises. It consists of three consecutive stages which ask: (1) whether the risk of injury was foreseeable; (2) whether the occupier could reasonably have been expected to have addressed this very particular risk; and (3) whether any remedial action the occupier actually took was appropriate.

This paper presents a history of New Zealand's accident compensation scheme as a struggle between two competing normative paradigms that justify the core reform of the replacement of civil actions for victims of personal injury with a comprehensive no-fault scheme. Under ‘community insurance’, the scheme represents the community taking moral and practical responsibility for members who are injured in accidents, while for ‘compulsory insurance’ the scheme is a specific form of compulsory accident insurance. Understanding the history of the scheme in this way helps explain both the persistence of the scheme and important changes made to it by different governments.

This paper seeks to explore the logic and manner of regulating tort situations in daily life. Based on interviews, it seeks to tease some societal sense out of the reactions of individuals faced with such situations. It hypothesizes that informal regulation is neither inconsistent nor amorphous and that, just like formal institutions, it contributes to the organization, facilitation and preservation of societal life and cohesion. The normative principles and the practical methods of regulation found by the research suggest that there is a perception that the cohesion of societal life is being continuously fashioned and renewed due to its conflictive nature, and that the containment of societal life within viable parameters is up to each one of society’s members.

This article outlines the case for a business duty of care to exercise human rights due diligence, judicially enforceable in common law countries by tort suits for negligence brought by persons whose potential injuries were reasonably foreseeable. A parent company’s duty of care would extend to the human rights impacts of all entities in the enterprise, including subsidiaries. A company would not be liable for breach of the duty of care if it proves that it reasonably exercised due diligence as set forth in the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. On the other hand, a company’s failure to exercise due diligence would create a rebuttable presumption of causation and hence liability. A company could then avoid liability only by carrying its burden to prove that the risk of the human rights violations was not reasonably foreseeable, or that the damages would have resulted even if the company had exercised due diligence.

In determining “the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims” under article 75(1) of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) Statute, the ICC will progressively lay the foundation of reparations in international criminal justice. In the process of establishing the typology of harms sustained by natural and—under some qualifications—legal persons, inter-state claims practice may prove to be of assistance to the judges in light of the particular circumstances of each case. In addition, such an exercise illuminates how the doctrinal methods adopted in public international law scholarship categorize and describe the harms that have given rise to reparation claims during both war and peacetime.