Abstract
The article analyses legal theory on compensation for acts of necessity. It set out to answer why a legally sanctioned act should be subject to compensation as a tort. The article accounts for present doctrines and theories. Based on this overview, the article suggest that the field presently operates from a shared set of idealised facts and that this limits the application of the prevalent theories. In order to devise a more flexible model, the article approaches the issue of compensation as inherent in the necessity decision itself. This sets out to solve the issue of compensation on a case-to-case basis under consideration of what causes the least possible interference. Accordingly, the issue of compensation must include a wide range of arguments and interests, rather than one structuring rule.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Journal of European Tort Law |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Pages (from-to) | 297-323 |
| Number of pages | 27 |
| ISSN | 1868-9612 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 20 Dec 2017 |