Nineteenth-century courts shifted tort law toward negligence to favor industrial growth

Evidence

During the second regime, in the nineteenth century, state judges reconceptualized the aims of tort law, viewing it as primarily concerned with deterring injurious conduct. This switch in orientation from redressing injuries to deterring misconduct had far-reaching consequences. No longer was one responsible for all injuries caused by one’s actions. Under the second regime, one was liable only if those injuries were foreseeable and if one failed to exercise due care to avoid them. In thus enshrining negligence as the standard for determining liability, state courts imparted a moral dimension to tort law; one was liable only when one’s actions were blameworthy. But adoption of the negligence standard also made it more difficult for plaintiffs to secure redress for injuries. They had to prove not only that the defendant’s actions injured them but also that the defendant had acted negligently. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3405

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Industrialization created accidents and knowledge gaps that the old tort law ignored. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3467; Holmes endorsed a lose-where-it-falls baseline in tort liability — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3405; The common law adapts to social and economic change — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1311 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Nineteenth-century judges actively reshaped common law to fit American conditions. #exemplifies (0.85) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2837
• The common law adapts to social and economic change #exemplifies (0.82) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1311