Paula Giliker – författare

Vicarious liability is controversial: a principle of strict liability in an area dominated by fault-based liability. By making an innocent party pay compensation for the torts of another, it can also appear unjust. Yet it is a principle found in all Western legal systems, be they civil law or common law. Despite uncertainty as to its justifications, it is accepted as necessary. In our modern global economy, we are unlikely to understand its meaning and rationale through study of one legal system alone. Using her considerable experience as a comparative tort lawyer, Paula Giliker examines the principle of vicarious liability (or, to a civil lawyer, liability for the acts of others) in England and Wales, Australia, Canada, France and Germany, and with reference to legal systems in countries such as the United States, New Zealand and Spain.

Vicarious liability is controversial: a principle of strict liability in an area dominated by fault-based liability. By making an innocent party pay compensation for the torts of another, it can also appear unjust. Yet it is a principle found in all Western legal systems, be they civil law or common law. Despite uncertainty as to its justifications, it is accepted as necessary. In our modern global economy, we are unlikely to understand its meaning and rationale through study of one legal system alone. Using her considerable experience as a comparative tort lawyer, Paula Giliker examines the principle of vicarious liability (or, to a civil lawyer, liability for the acts of others) in England and Wales, Australia, Canada, France and Germany, and with reference to legal systems in countries such as the United States, New Zealand and Spain.

This book is the one place to find unprecedented access to case-law, doctrinal debates and comparative reflections on vicarious liability from across the common law world. The doctrine of vicarious liability, that is strict liability for the torts of others, represents one of the most controversial areas of tort law. Unsurprisingly it is a doctrine that has been discussed in the highest courts of common law jurisdictions. This collection responds to uncertainties as to the operation of vicarious liability in twenty-first century tort law by looking at key common law jurisdictions and asking expert scholars to set out and critically analyse the law, identifying factors influencing change and the extent to which case-law from other common law jurisdictions has been influential. The jurisdictions covered include Canada, England and Wales, Australia, Singapore, Ireland, Hong Kong and New Zealand.In providing critical analysis of this important topic, it will be essential and compelling reading for all scholars of tort law and practitioners working in this field.

This book is the one place to find unprecedented access to case-law, doctrinal debates and comparative reflections on vicarious liability from across the common law world. The doctrine of vicarious liability, that is strict liability for the torts of others, represents one of the most controversial areas of tort law. Unsurprisingly it is a doctrine that has been discussed in the highest courts of common law jurisdictions. This collection responds to uncertainties as to the operation of vicarious liability in twenty-first century tort law by looking at key common law jurisdictions and asking expert scholars to set out and critically analyse the law, identifying factors influencing change and the extent to which case-law from other common law jurisdictions has been influential. The jurisdictions covered include Canada, England and Wales, Australia, Singapore, Ireland, Hong Kong and New Zealand. In providing critical analysis of this important topic, it will be essential and compelling reading for all scholars of tort law and practitioners working in this field.

This book is the one place to find unprecedented access to case-law, doctrinal debates and comparative reflections on vicarious liability from across the common law world. The doctrine of vicarious liability, that is strict liability for the torts of others, represents one of the most controversial areas of tort law. Unsurprisingly it is a doctrine that has been discussed in the highest courts of common law jurisdictions. This collection responds to uncertainties as to the operation of vicarious liability in twenty-first century tort law by looking at key common law jurisdictions and asking expert scholars to set out and critically analyse the law, identifying factors influencing change and the extent to which case-law from other common law jurisdictions has been influential. The jurisdictions covered include Canada, England and Wales, Australia, Singapore, Ireland, Hong Kong and New Zealand. In providing critical analysis of this important topic, it will be essential and compelling reading for all scholars of tort law and practitioners working in this field.

This book is the one place to find unprecedented access to case-law, doctrinal debates and comparative reflections on vicarious liability from across the common law world. The doctrine of vicarious liability, that is strict liability for the torts of others, represents one of the most controversial areas of tort law. Unsurprisingly it is a doctrine that has been discussed in the highest courts of common law jurisdictions. This collection responds to uncertainties as to the operation of vicarious liability in twenty-first century tort law by looking at key common law jurisdictions and asking expert scholars to set out and critically analyse the law, identifying factors influencing change and the extent to which case-law from other common law jurisdictions has been influential. The jurisdictions covered include Canada, England and Wales, Australia, Singapore, Ireland, Hong Kong and New Zealand.In providing critical analysis of this important topic, it will be essential and compelling reading for all scholars of tort law and practitioners working in this field.

Tort law is often regarded as the clearest example of traditional common law reasoning. Yet, in the past 40 years, the common law of England and Wales has been subject to European influences as a result of the introduction of the European Communities Act 1972 and, more recently, the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 in October 2000. EU Directives have led to changes to the law relating to product liability, health and safety in the workplace, and defamation, while Francovich liability introduces a new tort imposing State liability for breach of EU law. The 1998 Act has led to developments in privacy law and made the courts reconsider their approach to public authority liability and freedom of expression in defamation law. This book explores how English tort law has changed as a result of Europeanisation - broadly defined as the influence of European Union and European human rights law. It also analyses how this influence has impacted on traditional common law reasoning. Has Europeanisation led to changes to the common law legal tradition or has the latter proved more resistant to change than might have been expected?

Tort law is often regarded as the clearest example of traditional common law reasoning. Yet, in the past 40 years, the common law of England and Wales has been subject to European influences as a result of the introduction of the European Communities Act 1972 and, more recently, the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 in October 2000. EU Directives have led to changes to the law relating to product liability, health and safety in the workplace, and defamation, while Francovich liability introduces a new tort imposing State liability for breach of EU law. The 1998 Act has led to developments in privacy law and made the courts reconsider their approach to public authority liability and freedom of expression in defamation law. This book explores how English tort law has changed as a result of Europeanisation - broadly defined as the influence of European Union and European human rights law. It also analyses how this influence has impacted on traditional common law reasoning. Has Europeanisation led to changes to the common law legal tradition or has the latter proved more resistant to change than might have been expected?

The Research Handbook on EU Tort Law critically examines tort liability arising from EU law. It brings together for the first time different elements of EU tort law to provide a comprehensive overview of the institutional liability of the EU, member state liability and liability arising from a variety of EU legislation. Contributors are experts in their field and range from the UK and Ireland to France, Germany, the Netherlands and Hungary.The impact of EU tort law on national legal systems is wide-ranging. It extends to areas as diverse as consumer law, competition law, data protection law, employment law, insurance law and financial services law. The Research Handbook provides a detailed analysis of these areas of law and considers the extent to which we can now identify an emerging European culture of tort law. It further analyzes the impact of proposals to harmonise European tort law and considers the impact of Brexit on EU tort law.The Research Handbook offers an authoritative reference point for academics, students and practitioners studying or working in EU law, private law and comparative law. Comprehensive and informative, it is also accessible for those approaching the subject for the first time. Contributors include: J. Blackie, J. Davey, M. Faure, P. Giliker, M.-P. Granger, K. Gutman, J. Knetsch, D. Leczykiewicz, M. Martín-Casals, J. Mulder, L. Niglia, O. Odudu, C. Riefa, S. Saintier, A. Sanchez-Graells, K. Stanton, M. Stauch, F. White

The Research Handbook on EU Tort Law critically examines tort liability arising from EU law. It brings together for the first time different elements of EU tort law to provide a comprehensive overview of the institutional liability of the EU, member state liability and liability arising from a variety of EU legislation. Contributors are experts in their field and range from the UK and Ireland to France, Germany, the Netherlands and Hungary.

The impact of EU tort law on national legal systems is wide-ranging. It extends to areas as diverse as consumer law, competition law, data protection law, employment law, insurance law and financial services law. The Research Handbook provides a detailed analysis of these areas of law and considers the extent to which we can now identify an emerging European culture of tort law. It further analyzes the impact of proposals to harmonise European tort law and considers the impact of Brexit on EU tort law.

The Research Handbook offers an authoritative reference point for academics, students and practitioners studying or working in EU law, private law and comparative law. Comprehensive and informative, it is also accessible for those approaching the subject for the first time.

Contributors include: J. Blackie, J. Davey, M. Faure, P. Giliker, M.-P. Granger, K. Gutman, J. Knetsch, D. Leczykiewicz, M. Martín-Casals, J. Mulder, L. Niglia, O. Odudu, C. Riefa, S. Saintier, A. Sanchez-Graells, K. Stanton, M. Stauch, F. White

Tort law is often regarded as the clearest example of traditional common law reasoning. Yet, in the past 40 years, the common law of England and Wales has been subject to European influences as a result of the introduction of the European Communities Act 1972 and, more recently, the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 in October 2000. EU Directives have led to changes to the law relating to product liability, health and safety in the workplace, and defamation, while Francovich liability introduces a new tort imposing State liability for breach of EU law. The 1998 Act has led to developments in privacy law and made the courts reconsider their approach to public authority liability and freedom of expression in defamation law. This book explores how English tort law has changed as a result of Europeanisation - broadly defined as the influence of European Union and European human rights law. It also analyses how this influence has impacted on traditional common law reasoning. Has Europeanisation led to changes to the common law legal tradition or has the latter proved more resistant to change than might have been expected?