The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

The Liability Rule, proprietary remedies and body parts

The Liability Rule, proprietary remedies and body parts
The Liability Rule, proprietary remedies and body parts
Sometimes courts and commentators disavow a proprietary approach to excised body parts in the belief that non-proprietary remedies are adequate to the task. A belief of this sort, this type of conceptual resistance to the application of property law to body parts, is allegedly captured in the compendious expression known as the liability rule. Moore v Regents of the University of California clearly illustrates this type of opposition. Some recent scholarship has also tried to ground this sort of exclusive non-proprietary approach to body parts in the liability rule component of the analytical framework developed by Calabresi and Melamed. This piece interrogates the idea that nonproprietary causes of action should exclusively furnish the applicable theory of liability in relation to body parts; it suggests an understanding of the theoretical framework of Calabresi and Melamed which facilitates a proprietary approach to body parts along with current non-proprietary approaches. I argue that property, liability and inalienability rules basically serve the same purpose (protection of an entitlement in the nature of a property interest) and that the difference amongst them is one of degree rather than nature; also, none of the triad applies separately and independently of one another. Thus, I suggest that the liability rule is not essentially non-proprietary and could be used to protect a proprietary entitlement. I tested my understanding of Calabresi and Melamed’s framework against a case that involved damaged kidney in order to show the difference the framework, as conceived by me, could make to the remedial fortunes of a claimant in body parts’ litigation.
0144-932X
177-203
Nwabueze, Remigius
6b2cdf07-8ee1-4d6f-9882-e3ea41e2aa0b
Nwabueze, Remigius
6b2cdf07-8ee1-4d6f-9882-e3ea41e2aa0b

Nwabueze, Remigius (2016) The Liability Rule, proprietary remedies and body parts. Liverpool Law Review, 37 (3), 177-203. (doi:10.1007/s10991-016-9188-9).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Sometimes courts and commentators disavow a proprietary approach to excised body parts in the belief that non-proprietary remedies are adequate to the task. A belief of this sort, this type of conceptual resistance to the application of property law to body parts, is allegedly captured in the compendious expression known as the liability rule. Moore v Regents of the University of California clearly illustrates this type of opposition. Some recent scholarship has also tried to ground this sort of exclusive non-proprietary approach to body parts in the liability rule component of the analytical framework developed by Calabresi and Melamed. This piece interrogates the idea that nonproprietary causes of action should exclusively furnish the applicable theory of liability in relation to body parts; it suggests an understanding of the theoretical framework of Calabresi and Melamed which facilitates a proprietary approach to body parts along with current non-proprietary approaches. I argue that property, liability and inalienability rules basically serve the same purpose (protection of an entitlement in the nature of a property interest) and that the difference amongst them is one of degree rather than nature; also, none of the triad applies separately and independently of one another. Thus, I suggest that the liability rule is not essentially non-proprietary and could be used to protect a proprietary entitlement. I tested my understanding of Calabresi and Melamed’s framework against a case that involved damaged kidney in order to show the difference the framework, as conceived by me, could make to the remedial fortunes of a claimant in body parts’ litigation.

Text
__soton.ac.uk_ude_PersonalFiles_Users_sb1u11_mydocuments_Academic Papers EPrints & REF_Law Papers in ePrints_LIABILITY RULE PROPRIETARY REMEDIES AND BODY PARTS Clean Copy Main Document.docx - Accepted Manuscript
Download (92kB)
Text
art_10.1007_s10991-016-9188-9.pdf - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (384kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 13 October 2016
e-pub ahead of print date: 18 October 2016
Organisations: Southampton Law School

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 401568
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/401568
ISSN: 0144-932X
PURE UUID: 310cb0c9-55db-4ba6-a4e0-6517226136d3
ORCID for Remigius Nwabueze: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-3100-6427

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 18 Oct 2016 13:25
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 05:58

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×