Repairing Harms and Answering for Wrongs

Abstract

I contrast two models of tort law: a cost-allocation model, and the ‘civil recourse’ model offered by Golberg and Zipursky. The former makes it possible to draw a clear distinction between tort law and criminal law, and explains some of the differentiating features. The latter deals plausibly with kinds of cases that the cost-allocation model cannot accommodate: but it does so by bringing tort law much closer to criminal law, and thus raises several questions about the proper relationship between them.