Private Law Theory

INTRODUCTION
Much writing on English vicarious liability has been devoted to exploring the theoretical underpinnings of this doctrine in tort. Throughout the 20th century, legal scholars and judges have sought to find reasons that could justify it, with the result that we are now presented with a wide variety of potential justifications. The way these justifications are treated in academic (and sometimes judicial) writing betrays an attraction for monism, i.e. for the belief that it would be possible, and perhaps even desirable, to justify the law through the prism of a single idea, goal, or value. This attraction manifests itself in the common practice of assessing the potential justifications for vicarious liability one by one to see if any one in particular can explain all or at least most of the features of the law of vicarious liability. After carrying out this critical exercise, scholars and sometimes courts conclude that no single justification provides a convincing rationale …

€ (Westlaw)

Marco Cappelletti, ‘A pluralist view of vicarious liability in tort’ (2024) 140 Law Quarterly Review (Jan) 61-84.