File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1017/S0008197319000412
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85065575387
- WOS: WOS:000472967100003
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Malice as an Ingredient of Tort Liability
Title | Malice as an Ingredient of Tort Liability |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | conspiracy intentional torts malice malicious falsehood malicious prosecution misfeasance in public office |
Issue Date | 2019 |
Citation | Cambridge Law Journal, 2019, v. 78, n. 2, p. 355-382 How to Cite? |
Abstract | This article is concerned with the question of whether malice is an appropriate touchstone of liability in tort law. It begins by identifying four torts in which malice may properly be regarded as an ingredient of liability (distinguishing various other torts, such as private nuisance and defamation, in which malice plays a merely secondary and contingent role). Having identified these four torts-namely malicious prosecution, abuse of process, misfeasance in a public office and lawful means conspiracy-the article then seeks to identify a common juridical thread which links them together. So doing serves to rebut the allegation, often made in respect of all them, namely, that they are anomalous actions. It then concludes by considering the individual worth of these torts, bearing in mind the important difference between not being anomalous on the one hand, and being positively meritorious on the other. It concludes that a respectable defence of each of the four torts can be made even though malice is an atypical touchstone of liability. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/326186 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.5 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.261 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Murphy, John | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-09T09:58:45Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-03-09T09:58:45Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Cambridge Law Journal, 2019, v. 78, n. 2, p. 355-382 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0008-1973 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/326186 | - |
dc.description.abstract | This article is concerned with the question of whether malice is an appropriate touchstone of liability in tort law. It begins by identifying four torts in which malice may properly be regarded as an ingredient of liability (distinguishing various other torts, such as private nuisance and defamation, in which malice plays a merely secondary and contingent role). Having identified these four torts-namely malicious prosecution, abuse of process, misfeasance in a public office and lawful means conspiracy-the article then seeks to identify a common juridical thread which links them together. So doing serves to rebut the allegation, often made in respect of all them, namely, that they are anomalous actions. It then concludes by considering the individual worth of these torts, bearing in mind the important difference between not being anomalous on the one hand, and being positively meritorious on the other. It concludes that a respectable defence of each of the four torts can be made even though malice is an atypical touchstone of liability. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Cambridge Law Journal | - |
dc.subject | conspiracy | - |
dc.subject | intentional torts | - |
dc.subject | malice | - |
dc.subject | malicious falsehood | - |
dc.subject | malicious prosecution | - |
dc.subject | misfeasance in public office | - |
dc.title | Malice as an Ingredient of Tort Liability | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1017/S0008197319000412 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85065575387 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 78 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 355 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 382 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1469-2139 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000472967100003 | - |