Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
HAZARDS EQUITY: A PERSPECTIVE ON THE COMPENSATION SYSTEM 111 original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. Hazards Equity: A Perspective on the Compensation System Daniel S. Hoffman A natural focus for discussion of hazards equity is the system of compensation under our common lawâthat is, law created by judicial decision rather than legislation. Many people would accept the principles of common law compensation as not only being ethical, logical, and reasonable, but also as universal in application. The argument in this paper, however, is that the traditional legal principles of compensation are simply one set of socially responsible views applicable in most, but not all, settings. Because of the unevenness with which those legal principles have been applied, it is doubtful whether they are the best approach, or are suitable at all, to major health and environmental problems. The traditional approaches of the law may be particularly inappropriate where there has been a catastrophic public consequence that had a relatively remote chance of occurrence and where little, if anything, was known about cause-and-effect relationships during the formative years of the underlying hazard. This paper discusses two of the cornerstone principles of the compensation system at common law. The two principles are (1) that foreseeability defines duty and limits responsibility and (2) that the victim may recover total compensation from one, any, or all of the liable parties, who, in turn, may not obtain proportionate contribution from each other. THE PRINCIPLE OF FORESEEABILITY First, let us take a look at the compensation principle that foreseeability defines duty and limits liability (Keeton and Prosser, 1984, sec. 43). One has