Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The great illusion: tort law and exposure to danger of physical harm

By Emmanuel Voyiakis

Abstract

In the aftermath of Gregg v Scott and Johnston v NEI, it is commonly thought that claims for exposure to danger of physical harm are not independently compensatable in English law. I argue that this assumption is doubly mistaken. On the one hand, claimants exposed to danger of physical harm have a compelling argument of principle for the recovery of any significant increase in the cost of their options for dealing with the carelessly heightened danger to their physical health. On the other hand, that argument of principle is not blocked by Gregg, or other cases in the line of precedent consolidated in that decision. Properly construed, the rejection of the plaintiff's claims in Gregg and Johnston is consistent with a right of recovery for significant costs following from careless exposure to danger of physical harm

Topics: K Law (General)
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
Year: 2009
DOI identifier: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00774.x
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:38434
Provided by: LSE Research Online
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://www.modernlawreview.co.... (external link)
  • http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/38434... (external link)
  • Suggested articles


    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.