Intentional Negligence – A Contradiction in Terms?

Sydney Law Review, Vol. 32, No.1, 2011

UWA Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2012-20

39 Pages Posted: 19 Nov 2012 Last revised: 22 Nov 2012

See all articles by Peter Handford

Peter Handford

The University of Western Australia Law School

Date Written: November 19, 2012

Abstract

The area of torts dealing with the intentional and negligent infliction of personal injury is characterised by the interplay between the torts of trespass to the person, negligence, and the rule in Wilkinson v. Downton. However, negligence is the dominant tort. Beginning as a cause of action restricted to indirect injuries, in 1833 it expanded into the area of direct injuries, provided that the defendant’s conduct was negligent and not wilful. Negligence has now crossed this boundary; in recent years it has been extended to intentional wrongs, a development openly recognised by Australian courts. The author looks at the rise of ‘intentional negligence,' and suggests that the interrelationship of the various torts dealing with personal injury is more complex than conventionally suggested.

Keywords: torts, negligence, damages, intentional and negligent infliction of personal injury

Suggested Citation

Handford, Peter, Intentional Negligence – A Contradiction in Terms? (November 19, 2012). Sydney Law Review, Vol. 32, No.1, 2011, UWA Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2012-20, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2178172 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2178172

Peter Handford (Contact Author)

The University of Western Australia Law School ( email )

M253
35 Stirling Highway
Crawley, Western Australia 6009
Australia

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
314
Abstract Views
1,727
Rank
177,677
PlumX Metrics