COMMON LAW

Common Law



Abstract

Very broadly interpreted, we might take 'common law' to refer to that family of (Anglo-American) law that is contrasted with civilian families of law. In present context, this might present an interesting question of comparative law, but it is not question that I want to ask. Taking narrower, but still broad, definition, we might take 'common law' to refer to that body of law developed by judges rather than by legislators.

Table of Contents



INTRODUCTION4

BODY: DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS5

Regional Considerations7

The Political Economy9

The Constitution13

Parties, Groups, and Movements16

CONCLUSION19

Common Law

Introduction

Their sense of political efficacy has increased as their levels of political trust have decreased. This era has also seen reawakening of ideologies most of which had been latent in immediate post-World War II era, including feminism, racism, anti-racism, nationalism, regionalism, and environmentalism.

Of greater importance than overall British political culture is proliferation of sub cultural forces resulting from principal sociopolitical cleavages. Of these, most important is social class. While class structure has changed in United Kingdom since World War II, with sharp diminution in proportion of manual workers and skilled working class, social class—as measured by occupation, education, and income—retains its political salience. (Gostin 2000:13)

What is relationship between common law and public health? Do decisions or developments in common law impact on public health? Are impacts negative or positive, patterned or unpatterned, direct or indirect? Three thoughts occur initially. (Tellingly 2001:34)

First, where question is in form of 'How does A relate to B' answer rather depends on how A and B are defined. Unless we settle what we mean by 'common law' and 'public health', any account of their relationship will be unanchored and unhelpful. (Stovin 1997:559)

Secondly, it is tempting to think that there is only distant relationship between common law and public health. Whereas common law of contract is geared for commerce and protection of economic interests, common law of tort is geared for protection of private interests in person, property, and reputation. So, while law of contract famously protected Mrs. Carlill's economic expectation when Carbolic Smoke Ball failed to live up to promise of its producers,

1.It did nothing for general health of Victorian England.

2.Similarly, in Donoghue v Stevenson,

3.While claimant was judged to have an arguable case for compensation, this did not directly avail other consumers and nor did it forestall obesity crisis of several decades later.

Thirdly, however, we might entertain opposite thought. Prompted by remarks such as those of George Bush who, shortly after becoming governor of Texas, declared that reform of tort regime was top priority, because class actions were proving too effective in holding polluters to account,

4. We might think that common law is trump card in advancing public health objectives.

Following these initial thoughts, paper is in two principal parts. In first, I deal with definitional issues and then, in longer second part, I formulate three views—functionalism, smart regulatory theory, and protectionism—that maintain that it is not business of common law to advance public health objectives. (Friedmann 2001:46)

Body: Discussion and Analysis

The broad political beliefs, values, and ideals of British people ...