The Idea of Complementarity as a Philosophical Basis for Pluralism in Tort Law

Abstract

This chapter rests upon certain premises that are controversial: it supposes both the existence and desirability of multiple aims and functions in the framework of tort law. The idea of ‘complementarity’ in the specific sense formulated by its founder, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, assumes the inherently contradictory nature of the various aims and functions of the law of torts. Thus, to the extent that the rules, principles, and aims of tort law are viewed as inconsistent or ‘incoherent’, the concept of complementarity provides a justificatory foundation for this normative reality. Pluralism itself is viewed differently by the various monistic theorists. It should be noted, however, that the contradictions and incoherencies inside tort law, as revealed by Jack Balkin, are not identical with Ernest Weinrib’s concern for formal consistency. Balkin’s central opposition of individualism and communalism does not square with Weinrib’s formal dichotomy of corrective justice and distributive justice.

Tort, Insurance and Incoherence

“…65 One proposed way out of the impasse is to employ Niels Bohr's method of 'complimentarity', ie the simultaneous application of two mutually exclusive concepts to explain a phenomenon. 66 Whatever the method's explanatory power in its original realm of sub-atomic physics, the present author (and he suspects most lawyers) would enter Alice's demurrer here, upon being asked to believe six impossible things before breakfast. 67 A more promising approach is to resolve con£icts between values by a set of meta-principles (and ultimately a master principle), explicitly designed to order the values, and so to resolve such con£icts.…”

El valor intrínseco de la responsabilidad civil

“…32 Aunque cada vez son más influyentes los modelos pluralistas que niegan la posibilidad de encontrar un único principio capaz de explicar todos los aspectos relevantes del fenómeno de la responsabilidad civil. Véase, entre muchos otros, Englard, 1995;y, más recientemente, Hershovitz, 2017. AFD, 2018 nómico del derecho no hay ninguna razón de principio para implementar un sistema de responsabilidad civil.…”

La prevención en materia ambiental: tendencias actuales

“…2 Para una visión más completa de la historia de la filosofía de la responsabilidad extracontractual y su evolución sugerimos como lectura: Englard (1993;, Owen (1995), Goldberg (2002) y Zipursky (2013).…”