Suchergebnisse

Part I of this Article traces Washington's history with the common law doctrine of government immunity from tort liability. It also identifies other distinct common law immunities protecting executive, legislative, and judicial functions-immunities that lay dormant during the reign of sovereign immunity. Part II discusses the legislature's broad waiver of sovereign immunity in 1961 and the legislature's subsequent reaffirmation of the waiver. It also notes isolated instances in which the legislature has partially restored immunity or otherwise limited tort liability. Part III addresses the development of case law interpreting the scope of government tort liability in light of the legislative waiver of sovereign immunity and examines the impact of the remaining related common law immunities for executive, legislative, and judicial functions. Part III also examines the role of the "public duty doctrine," which has evolved as a conceptual framework for assessing whether a predicate duty supports government tort liability in any given circumstance. Finally, Part IV exalts the continuing value of holding government accountable for its tortious conduct, treating such accountability as a legitimate means to encourage responsible government and achieve individual justice. Part IV also urges that any marked retreat from the broad waiver of sovereign immunity is unnecessary and unjustified, whether viewed from a fiscal or ideological standpoint.

Constitution and State Responsibility (administrative law) are fairly close terms, not only because they coincide in the most determining aspects of their evolution and consolidation, but also because they both constantly dialogue and nourish each other reciprocally. In effect, the active role that the public administration began to have towards the end of the 18th century led to the need to establish limits to the exercise of power and to the idea that the latter should submit to the law. Additionally, respect for fundamental rights became a requirement for state authorities and a limit for their actions. With the emergence of modern constitutions and with the passage of the irresponsible State to the responsible State, the responsibility of the public administration increasingly becomes an important and effective mechanism to control and limit the exercise of power and to guarantee fundamental rights and the supremacy of the constitutional text, a circumstance that is also seen in the context of a democratic Constitution –like the Colombian Constitution of 1991–, in which the responsibility of the State contributes, in addition, to respect and fulfillment of the popular will expressed in the Politic Constitution. ; Constitución y responsabilidad Estatal (derecho administrativo) son términos bastante cercanos, no sólo porque coinciden en los aspectos más determinantes de su evolución y conso-lidación, sino también porque ambos dialogan constantemente y se nutren recíprocamente. En efecto, el papel activo que empezó a tener la administración pública hacia finales del S iglo XVIII condujo a la necesidad de establecer unos límites al ejercicio del poder y a la idea de que este último debía someterse al derecho. Adicionalmente, el respeto a los Derechos Fundamentales pasó a ser una exigencia para las autoridades estatales y un límite para sus actuaciones. Con el surgimiento de las constituciones modernas y con el paso del Estado irresponsable al Estado responsable, la responsabilidad de la administración pública se convierte cada vez más en un importante y efectivo mecanismo para controlar y limitar el ejercicio del poder y garantizar mate -rialmente los derechos fundamentales y la supremacía del texto constitucional, circunstancia que también se aprecia en el contexto de una Constitución democrática -como la colombiana de 1991-, en la que la responsabilidad del Estado contribuye, además, al respeto y al cumplimiento de la voluntad popular expresada en la Carta Política.

The Covid-19 pandemic has cost human lives and threaten the world's economy. Responding to this unprecedented history, governments are expected to take both public health and economic recovery actions. This article conveys analysis on how Indonesian courts might examine government tort cases on the government's liability in handling the pandemic. A normative juridical method is used to analyze primary and secondary legal sources. The writer finds that with the enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration, a government concrete action is also an object to suing government before the state administrative court. Furthermore, the recent Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2019 on Guidance Dispute Settlement Mechanism of Government Action and Competence to Adjudicate Government Tort governs that the state administrative court is the only court that has competence over government tort. As a result, claims of government tort submitted to the general court must be dismissed. In fact, this recent development created confusion on the side of justice seekers and judges as well that might affect the outcome of Covid-19 government tort claims. Studying previous government tort cases and focusing its exploration on the development of government immunity and liability, this article finds that Indonesian courts use Article 1365 Civil Code equipped with laws and regulations in administrative governance and specific fields legal frameworks to examine government tort cases. Even though such laws may state that the government may not be sued, the courts may use the Constitution of 1945 to establish a right to sue. During the Covid-19 pandemic, laws and regulations related to disaster and public health management along with the public interest principle must be examined to determine government tort.

The relatively recent expansion of the liability of federal employees for so-called constitutional torts and the accompanying contraction of the immunity of those employees against suits for such torts have resulted in significant problems for the federal government, its employees, and even for victims of official misconduct. After briefly describing the law of constitutional torts and official immunity, this article will examine a proposal to amend the Federal Tort Claims Act to make the Government the exclusive defendant in constitutional tort suits.

Society wants more expenditures to reduce the risks of injury,illness, and premature death associated with many activities, but simultaneously it wants the fruits of those activities to continue to be available at a low cost. To some extent, these goals are inherently in conflict. On occasion society may give vitality to the slogan that human life has an infinite value, but it can do so only in narrow contexts and for brief periods. More often, artful self-deception is practiced to create the appearance of adhering to an impossible, but widely held, ideal, while in actuality lives are balanced against dollars. Every societal decision requires at least an implicit valuation of human life. In this Article, I attempt to build upon Professor Calabresi's basic analytical framework. Identifying the flaws in present systems of encouraging safety and demonstrating,through the use of empirical evidence, the extreme distortions created by those flaws, I propose an entirely new approach to the goal of reducing accident costs through the legal system.