Scribd
Upload
115 views3 pages

Holme Objective Liability

Holmes argued that liability standards should be based on external or objective standards rather than subjective standards focused on the intent of the actor. In his book The Common Law, Holmes called for adopting standards of liability in tort and criminal law based on external conformity to rules rather than personal motives or intentions. As a judge, Holmes applied external standards of liability in his decisions, focusing on whether a reasonable person would have foreseen harm rather than subjective factors like intent or ignorance. One critic argued Holmes' judicial decisions were consistent with his theory of external liability standards from The Common Law. His most famous decision, Commonwealth v. Pierce, applied an objective standard of recklessness for manslaughter despite the defendant's claimed good intent and ignorance.

Uploaded by

maheshwari.shubham0115
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
115 views3 pages

Holme Objective Liability

Holmes argued that liability standards should be based on external or objective standards rather than subjective standards focused on the intent of the actor. In his book The Common Law, Holmes called for adopting standards of liability in tort and criminal law based on external conformity to rules rather than personal motives or intentions. As a judge, Holmes applied external standards of liability in his decisions, focusing on whether a reasonable person would have foreseen harm rather than subjective factors like intent or ignorance. One critic argued Holmes' judicial decisions were consistent with his theory of external liability standards from The Common Law. His most famous decision, Commonwealth v. Pierce, applied an objective standard of recklessness for manslaughter despite the defendant's claimed good intent and ignorance.

Uploaded by

maheshwari.shubham0115
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Holme’s Theory of Objective Liability

Holmes argued that liability standards begin with the notion of wrongful intent to
cause harm, and the accompanying notion of personal moral blame- worthiness.
This can be seen as a theological stage in legal thought, for it focuses on the
subjective intent of the actor. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was driven by one
dominant motive throughout his long and successful legal career: the desire for
great accomplishment. This motivation, often acknowledged by Holmes, was the
goad to a life of toil, sacrifice, and achievement. Holmes was known to study the
law harder than anyone." As a young lawyer, he accepted the editorship of the
comprehensive American legal bible, Kent's Commentaries, and finished an
outstanding job by working at it obsessively for three years. He accepted the
editorship of the American Law Review, and in that position read and commented
on the latest books and the latest developments in the law. While working full time
as a lawyer by day, he developed his legal theories by night. Ultimately, Holmes
applied those theories to the full range of the common law, in a book, The
Common Law, generally acknowledged to be the finest American book on the
law, period. As a judge, he worked diligently at his opinions, finished them with
incredible speed, and always asked for more. While he was a judge, he elaborated
on his legal theories in several brilliant scholarly writings. Holmes longed for
greatness.
Holmes's analysis in The Common Law called for the adoption of wholly external
standards of liability in tort and criminal law. Holmes' derived this conclusion
from the purpose of the law-"to induce external conformity to rule"' -- and the
observation that external or objective standards, in which the personal motives or
intentions of the actor are irrelevant, are more effective than subjective standards in
inducing external conformity.' Holmes the judge did not hesitate to adopt external
or objective liability standards in tort and criminal law. One author, after reviewing
all of Holmes's tort and criminal law opinions in the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court, concluded that "Holmes' performance on the Massachusetts bench
was highly consistent with his Common Law theory of external liability standards
in criminal and tort law." ' The most famous of these external standards cases is
Commonwealth v. Pierce.'22 Franklin Pierce practiced as a physician. He wrapped
one of his sick patients in flannels soaked in kerosene, with her consent. After
three days of this treatment, she died. Pierce was convicted of manslaughter. The
trial court had instructed the jury that the test of criminal liability was "gross and
reckless negligence." It had rejected Pierce's requested instruction that he could not
be convicted without a finding that he knew of "the fatal tendency of the
prescription" and that his action was the result of "obstinate, willful rashness, and
not of an honest intent and expectation to cure." Holmes, writing for the supreme
judicial court, held that the defendant's ignorance of the danger, and his presumed
good intent and expectation of a cure, were irrelevant. The manslaughter standard
of recklessness, according to Judge Holmes, was a wholly external one: did the
defendant act with knowledge of facts that would have led a man of ordinary
prudence to foresee a serious and unreasonable danger to the patient's life?
Most would agree that Pierce was a terrible decision. It does not make sense to
send an ignorant but well-meaning person to prison because he tried, in good faith,
to cure a patient by unconventional means that others would know to be dangerous.
Malpractice is not necessarily manslaughter.12 This reaction to Pierce is based on
a belief that criminal punishment should be related to personal moral fault.
Because that belief in turn is based on a view that the purpose of the criminal law
is to punish morally blameworthy violations of the social code, the critique of
Pierce is based on a criminal-law theory that Holmes specifically rejected. Holmes
thought the underlying purpose of criminal law was to deter dangerous behavior,
not to punish those guilty of morally blameworthy breaches of the social code.
Holmes is also of the very view. He says that: when the question of
defendant's negligence is left to jury, negligence does not mean the actual
state of the defendant's mind, but a failure to act as a prudent man of average
intelligence would have done. He is required to conform to an objective
standard at his peril.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy