1071. Francis Lieber, "Civil Liberty and Self-government" SUB-TOPIC C. DETENTION, AFTER ARREST, WITHOUT INSTITUTING 1087. Edward J. Lowell, "On the Eve of the French Revolution". 1088. H. M. Stephens, and H. Taine, "The French Revolution" SUB-TITLE (VIII): POLICIES SEEKING JUSTIFICATION IN THE NECESSITIES FOR INDEPENDENCE AND EFFICIENCY OF 1111. Wm. M. Thackeray, "A Journey from Cornhill to Cairo" 1112. Edmund D. Morel, “King Leopold's Rule in Africa" 1113. R. W. Emerson, "Napoleon, the Man of the World” 1114. Albert Edwards, "Our Canal". 1115. Charles, Baron de Montesquieu, "The Spirit of the Laws" 1116. Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America" 1117. Francis Lieber, “Civil Liberty and Self-Government" 1118. A. V. Dicey, "Lectures on the Constitution" 1119. Frank J. Goodnow, "Comparative Administrative Law” 1129. Van Deusen v. Newcomer (Michigan, 1876) 1130. Fields v. Stokley (Pennsylvania, 1882). 1131. Miller v. Horton (Massachusetts, 1891). 1132. Raymond v. Fish (Connecticut, 1883) 1133. Pearson v. Zehr (Illinois, 1891) 1136. Wall v. McNamara (England, 1779) 1137. Dawkins v. Lord Paulet (England, 1869) 1138. Wilkes v. Dinsman (United States, 1849) 1139. Mitchell v. Harmony (United States, 1851) 1151. Att'y General v. Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum (England, 1868). 1152. Metropolitan District Asylum v. Hill (England, 1881). 1153. Radcliff's Ex'rs v. Mayor, etc. of Brooklyn (New York, 1850) 1154. Cogswell v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (New York, 1886) BOOK III: THE EXCUSE ELEMENT 548. JOHN H. WIGMORE. A General Analysis of Tort Relations. (Harvard Law Review, 1895, VIII, 377.) . . . In the Excuse or Justification element, a general agreement of jurists as to the inter-groupings of the various topics has not yet been reached - has indeed been little canvassed. An attractive method is to ignore superficial resemblances, and to take as the basis of grouping the essential policy of the Excuse, that which gives it character, and explains its varying application by the Courts. To begin with, then, we find two broad groupings. (A) We notice that in one group the excuse finds its reason solely or substantially in the condition, conduct, or other circumstances of the plaintiff, the one suffering the harm. Excuses resting on the consent, the contributory fault, the illegal conduct, the need of assistance, of the plaintiff are thus characterized, and are governed by considerations more or less associated. (B) At the other extreme, we find certain excuses resting exclusively on the interest of others than the plaintiff. These include the excuses resting on the needs of public justice, and the excuses resting on the interests of the community in general or of the defendant in particular, defining the limits of competition for commercial profit, the extent of injury by nuisances, etc. The general problem is to determine how far such opposing interests justify the harm done to a plaintiff himself innocent of fault. A. The first general group might be subdivided from more than one point of view. For example, we might grade the several principles according to the intensity of the plaintiff's fault, and follow that order, thus exhibiting scientifically the shading off of one principle into another. But for the purposes of a system of instruction, it is better to follow some order which places first the elementary principles and proceeds to more complicated ones involving an understanding of the former. A compromise between these two methods seems feasible. The first four principles are here arranged on the latter method (I, Plaintiff's Aggression; II, Plaintiff's Consent; III, Plaintiff's Contributory Fault; IV, Plaintiff a Law-Breaker). Then would come V, the application of the third and the fourth to Injuries received on Defendant's Premises. Finally, VI, would come the Plaintiff's Status as a subject of Discipline and Correction; this being in fact a principle which in some aspects could also be placed under the next Title. B. In the second general group, it is necessary to subdivide the various rules according to the several general policies involved, Protection against Natural Calamities; Needs of Economic Improvements; Needs of Industrial Competition; Needs of Free Resort to Courts; Needs of Judicial Independence and of Official Independence. This means a frank abandonment of any grouping based on the kind of damage (cause of action). For example, a judge's immunities must be considered together, not widely separated under Defamation and Trespass. The immunities of health officers, military officers, and legislators must be compared, not separated under Defamation, Trespass, etc. The ex 1 |