Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Historical Development of the Fault Basis of Liability in the Law of Torts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Impact of Law's History

Part of the book series: Palgrave Modern Legal History ((PMLH))

  • 298 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter seeks to understand the general shift in the law of tort, over centuries, from a primarily strict liability system to a fault-based system. At inception, the law was designed to deter the blood feud between individuals as a way of ‘resolving’ conflict. In that context, legal principles that made a person who caused injury to another liable, regardless of the circumstances, were understandable. However, a shift occurred in the law. The law began to take into account the extent to which the plaintiff’s injuries could be said to be the fault of the defendant. All the circumstances of the events, rather than the simple fact or injury and causation, began to be considered. It is important to understand the timeframe over which this has occurred and why it occurred. Such learning may give us fresh insights into possible future reforms in tort law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Tony Weir, “The Staggering March of Negligence,” in The Law of Obligations: Essays in Celebration of John Fleming, ed. Peter Cane and Jane Stapleton (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 97.

  2. 2.

    [1932] AC 562.

  3. 3.

    Wex Malone, “Ruminations on the Role of Fault in the History of the Common Law of Torts,” Louisiana Law Review 33 (1970): 1; Francis Bowes Sayre, “Mens Rea,” Harvard Law Review 45 (1932): 977, 979; Jeremiah Smith, “Tort and Absolute Liability: Suggested Changes in Classification,” Harvard Law Review 30 (1917): 248.

  4. 4.

    David Ibbetson, “How the Romans Did for Us: Ancient Roots of the Tort of Negligence,” University of New South Wales Law Journal 26 (2003): 477.

  5. 5.

    Hull v. Orynge (1466) B & M 327 (KB).

  6. 6.

    David Kretzmer, “Transformation of Tort Liability in the Nineteenth Century: The Visible Hand,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 4, no. 1 (1984): 74–76.

  7. 7.

    Percy H. Winfield, “The History of Negligence in the Law of Torts,” Law Quarterly Review 42, no. 2 (April 1926): 194.

  8. 8.

    Stephen G. Gilles, “Inevitable Accident in Classical English Tort Law,” Emory Law Journal 43, no. 2 (Spring 1994): 576.

  9. 9.

    Rich v. Kneeland (1613) Cro. Jac. 330; 79 ER 282.

  10. 10.

    Navenby v. Lascelles (1368) B & M 552, 554.

  11. 11.

    Calye’s Case (1604) 8 Co. Rep. 321; 77 ER 520; Bennett v. Mellor (1793) TR 273; 101 ER 154.

  12. 12.

    Tenant v. Goodwin (1705) 2 Ld. Raym. 1089, 1092; 92 ER 222, 224.

  13. 13.

    Lambert v Bessey (1681) Sir T. Raym. 467, 467; 83 ER 244, 244.

  14. 14.

    David Ibbetson, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 58–63.

  15. 15.

    Robert J. Kaczorowski, “The Common-Law Background of Nineteenth-Century Tort Law,” Ohio State Law Journal 51 (1990): 1169–70: “Charles Wigmore and John Baker and S Milsom argued that as early as the sixteenth century fault or negligence was a factual circumstance plaintiffs had to prove before juries would find defendants guilty. These authors have suggested that the defendant’s negligence may have become relevant if he pleaded the general issue of ‘not guilty’ and tried to explain his actions by explaining the circumstances to the jury. However, lacking records of trial proceedings and jury deliberations, conclusive evidence supporting this view is non-existent and hence the view itself will never advance beyond an unprovable hypothesis”.

  16. 16.

    (1616) Hob. 134, 135; 80 ER 284, 284.

  17. 17.

    George P. Fletcher, “Fairness and Utility in Tort Theory,” Harvard Law Review 85 (January 1972): 556–58.

  18. 18.

    (1676) 1 Vent. 295; 86 ER 190. See also Michell v. Allestry (1685) 3 Keb. 650; 84 ER 932.

  19. 19.

    (1676) 1 Vent. 295, 295; 86 ER 190, 190.

  20. 20.

    J. H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History (London: Butterworths, 2002), 411.

  21. 21.

    Ibbetson, “How the Romans Did For Us,” 499.

  22. 22.

    Morris S. Arnold, “Accident, Mistake, and Rules of Liability in the Fourteenth-Century Law of Torts,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 128 (December 1979): 372. The case referred to appears at YB Pasch. 42 Edw. 3, f. 11, pl. 13, 42, Liner Assisarum, f. 260, pl. 17 (1368).

  23. 23.

    Sayre, “Mens Rea,” 990–91.

  24. 24.

    Matthew Hale, Pleas of the Crown, trans. (London: Atkyns and Atkyns, 1682), 38.

  25. 25.

    (1681) Raym. Sir. T 421, 423; 80 ER 220, 221.

  26. 26.

    Frederick Pollock and Frederic Maitland, Before the Time of Edward I, vol. 2 of The History of English Law (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1895), 469.

  27. 27.

    Innkeepers Act 1863 (UK).

  28. 28.

    Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway (1860) 5 H & N 679; 156 ER 667, applying Rex v. Pease (1832) 4 B & Ad. 30; 110 ER 366.

  29. 29.

    (1874) LR 9 CP 316.

  30. 30.

    Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503, 509.

  31. 31.

    Heaven v. Pender, 322 (Denman J took a similar position).

  32. 32.

    Fletcher v. Rylands (1865) LR 1 Ex. 265 (CA).

  33. 33.

    Fletcher v. Rylands, 279–280 (Blackburn J, for Willes Keating Mellor Montague Smith and Lush JJ).

  34. 34.

    Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 AC 330, 341.

  35. 35.

    A. W. B. Simpson, “Legal Liability for Bursting Reservoirs: The Historical Context of Rylands v. Fletcher,” Journal of Legal Studies 13 (June 1984): 251–52.

  36. 36.

    G. H. L. Fridman “The Rise and Fall of Rylands v. Fletcher,” Canadian Bar Review 34, no. 7 (August–September 1956): 813.

  37. 37.

    [1947] AC 156.

  38. 38.

    [1994] 2 AC 264.

  39. 39.

    [2004] 2 AC 1. The decision is unsatisfactory for many reasons, which I elaborate upon in my book Anthony Gray, The Evolution from Strict Liability to Fault in the Law of Torts (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2021), 91–96. Essentially, the dissatisfaction comes from apparent attempts to resurrect strict liability (Lord Bingham), attempts to relate liability to insurability (Lord Hoffmann), attempts to retro-fit concepts of control onto Rylands (Lord Hobhouse), and consideration of whether the defendant’s use of the land was ‘reasonable’ (Lord Scott), and whether the loss resulted from actions of the defendant that were planned or were gradual and invisible (Lord Walker).

  40. 40.

    Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520.

  41. 41.

    Restatement (First) of Torts, American Law Institute (1938), s 520; Restatement (Second) of Torts, American Law Institute (1977), ss 519–20; Restatement (Third) of Torts, American Law Institute (1998), s 20(a).

  42. 42.

    (1875) LR 10 Ex. 261.

  43. 43.

    [1891] 1 QB 86 (Denman J).

  44. 44.

    Holmes v. Mather, 267.

  45. 45.

    (1876) 1 QBD 314, 319: ‘if there were a latent defect in the premises, or something done to them without the knowledge of the owner or occupier by a wrongdoer, such as digging out the coals underneath and so leaving a house near the highway in a dangerous condition, I doubt … whether or not the occupier would be liable. But if he did know of the defect, and neglect(ed) to put the premises in order, he would be liable. He would be responsible to this extent, that as soon as he knew of the danger he would be bound to put the premises in repair or pull them down.’

  46. 46.

    Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562.

  47. 47.

    Sedleigh-Denfield v. O’Callaghan [1940] AC 880.

  48. 48.

    Hedley Byrne v. Heller and Partners [1964] AC 562.

  49. 49.

    Frederick Pollock, Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics (London: Macmillan and Co., 1882), 122.

  50. 50.

    Howard C. Klemme, “The Enterprise Liability Theory of Torts,” University of Colorado Law Review 47, no. 2 (Winter 1976): 153.

  51. 51.

    C. Robert Morris Jr., “Enterprise Liability and the Actuarial Process--The Insignificance of Foresight,” Yale Law Journal 70, no. 4 (March 1961): 586.

  52. 52.

    Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd [1957] AC 555, 576–77 (Viscount Simonds).

  53. 53.

    Guido Calabresi, “Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts,” Yale Law Journal 70 (March 1961): 523.

  54. 54.

    [1999] 2 SCR 534.

  55. 55.

    Bazley v. Curry, 554–55.

  56. 56.

    Bazley v. Curry, 554.

  57. 57.

    Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1881), 60.

  58. 58.

    Allan Beever, A Theory of Tort Liability (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2016), 18.

  59. 59.

    For more discussion, see Anthony Gray, Vicarious Liability: Critique and Reform (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2018), chs 5–7 and Gray, The Evolution from Strict Liability to Fault in the Law of Torts, chs 5–6.

  60. 60.

    Sedleigh-Denfield v. O’Callaghan [1940] AC 880; Torette House Pty Ltd v. Berkman (1940) 62 CLR 637. Scholars have noted the confusing conflation of nuisance and negligence in this case: Conor Gearty, “The Place of Private Nuisance in a Modern Law of Torts,” Cambridge Law Journal 48, no. 2 (1989): 237; John Murphy, The Law of Nuisance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 17. See F. H. Newark, “The Boundaries of Nuisance,” Law Quarterly Review 65, no. 4 (October 1949): 486–87.

  61. 61.

    Classically, P. H. Winfield, “Nuisance as a Tort,” The Cambridge Law Journal 4, no. 2 (1931): 198.

  62. 62.

    Maria Lee, “What is Private Nuisance?” Law Quarterly Review 119 (2003): 303: ‘in a number of instances, the courts have certainly, whilst calling the action private nuisance, emphasised the importance of the conduct of the defendant, and analysed the issues in the language of negligence … the argument that negligence-type fault is required in certain cases addressed under private nuisance has apparently been accepted by the courts. Even if the courts describe the question in terms of private nuisance, or say that it does not matter which tort is used, the claim is essentially fault-based, and rests on negligence.’

  63. 63.

    Anthony Gray, “The Evolution from Strict Liability to Negligence: When and Why? Part 1,” Australian Law Journal 94, no. 8 (2020); Anthony Gray, “The Evolution from Strict Liability to Negligence: When and Why? Part 2,” Australian Law Journal 94, no. 9 (2020).

  64. 64.

    (1606) 5 Co Rep 125; 77 ER 250.

  65. 65.

    (1770) 5 Burr 2776.

  66. 66.

    [1910] AC 20, 23–24.

  67. 67.

    Tony Weir, “The Staggering March of Negligence,” 115: ‘if there is one tort which would have benefited from the introduction of the rules of negligence, it is defamation’.

  68. 68.

    Emmens v. Pottle (1885) 16 QBD 354; Defamation Act 1996 (UK) s 1(1). Eric Descheemaeker, “Protecting Reputation: Defamation and Negligence,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 29 (2009): 630 describes the offer to make amends in s 4 of that Act as ‘an excellent example of the imposition of a negligence standard of liability on the law of defamation’.

  69. 69.

    Spring v. Guardian Assurance Plc [1995] 2 AC 296, 337 (Lord Slynn), 346 (Lord Woolf).

  70. 70.

    Eric Descheemaeker, “Protecting Reputation,” 639–40: ‘over the course of the past century, the English law of defamation has seen a massive, if typically under-recognized, infiltration of the principles of negligence in a tort which had previously been defined … in isolation from it. This can be taken to reflect the law’s growing dissatisfaction with the modern paradigm of defamation. This paradigm is that liability for injuring someone’s reputation unjustifiably is ordinarily strict … there seems to be a gradual convergence towards negligence-culpa as the standard of liability.’

  71. 71.

    Chic Fashions (West Wales) v. Jones [1968] 2 QB 299, 315 (CA) (noting that the action for trespass to land did not traditionally involve questions of blameworthiness on the defendant’s part, before continuing) ‘the development of the common law in the last thirty years, however, has tended towards equating civil liability with conduct which right-minded men in contemporary society would regard as blameworthy and towards protecting those who act reasonably in intended performance of what right-minded men would deem a duty to their fellow men’.

  72. 72.

    Christine Beuermann, “Are the Torts of Trespass to the Person Obsolete? Part II: Continued Evolution,” Tort Law Review 26 (2018): 17. See similarly M. A. Millner, “The Retreat of Trespass,” Current Legal Problems 18, no. 1 (1965): 30 and Peter Handford, “Intentional Negligence: A Contradiction in Terms?” Sydney Law Review 32 (2010): 61–62.

References

  1. Arnold, Morris S. 1979. Accident, Mistake, and Rules of Liability in the Fourteenth-Century Law of Torts. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 128: 361–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baker, J. H. 2002. An Introduction to English Legal History. 4th ed. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bazley v. Curry [1999] 2 SCR 534 (Can.)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beever, Allan. 2016. A Theory of Tort Liability. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bennett v. Mellor (1793) TR 273; 101 ER 154.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beuermann, Christine. 2018. Are the Torts of Trespass to the Person Obsolete? Part 2: Continued Evolution. Tort Law Review 26: 6–17.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Calabresi, Guido. 1961. Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts. Yale Law Journal 70: 499–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Calye’s Case (1604) 8 Co Rep 321; 77 ER 520.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather Co. [1994] 2 AC 264.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carriers Act 1830 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chic Fashions (West Wales) v. Jones [1968] 2 QB 299.

    Google Scholar 

  13. De Libellis Famosis (1606) 5 Co. Rep. 125; 77 ER 250.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Defamation Act 1996 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Descheemaeker, Eric. 2009. Protecting Reputation: Defamation and Negligence. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 29: 603–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. E Hulton & Co v. Jones [1910] AC 20.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Emmens v. Pottle (1885) 16 QBD 354.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fletcher v. Rylands (1865) LR 1 Ex. 265 (CA).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fletcher, George P. 1972. Fairness and Utility in Tort Theory. Harvard Law Review 85: 537–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fridman, G. H. L. 1956. The Rise and Fall of Rylands v. Fletcher. Canadian Bar Review 34: 810–824.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gearty, Conor. 1989. The Place of Private Nuisance in a Modern Law of Torts. The Cambridge Law Journal 48: 214–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gilles, Stephen G. 1994. Inevitable Accident in Classical English Tort Law. Emory Law Journal 43: 575–646.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gray, Anthony. 2020. The Evolution from Strict Liability to Negligence: When and Why? Part 1. Australian Law Journal 94: 614–630.

    Google Scholar 

  24. ———. 2020. The Evolution from Strict Liability to Negligence: When and Why? Part 2. Australian Law Journal 94: 699–708.

    Google Scholar 

  25. ———. 2021. The Evolution from Strict Liability to Fault in the Law of Torts. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  26. ———. 2018. Vicarious Liability: Critique and Reform. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hale, Matthew. 1682. Pleas of the Crown. London: Atkyns and Atkyns.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hammond v The Vestry of St Pancras (1874) LR 9 CP 316.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Handford, Peter. 2010. Intentional Negligence: A Contradiction in Terms. Sydney Law Review 32: 29–62.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hedley Byrne v. Heller and Partners [1964] AC 562.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Holmes v. Mather (1875) LR 10 Ex. 261.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr. 1881. The Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hull v. Orynge (1466) B & M 327 (KB).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ibbetson, David J. 1999. A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. ———. 2003. How the Romans Did for Us: Ancient Roots of the Tort of Negligence. University of New South Wales Law Journal 26 (2): 475–514.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Innkeepers Act 1863 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kaczorowski, Robert J. 1990. The Common-Law Background of Nineteenth-Century Tort Law. Ohio State Law Journal 51: 1127–1200.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Klemme, Howard C. 1976. The Enterprise Liability Theory of Torts. University of Colorado Law Review 47: 153–232.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kretzmer, David. 1984. Transformation of Tort Liability in the Nineteenth Century: The Visible Hand. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 4: 46–87.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lambert v Bessey (1681) Sir T Raym. 467; 83 ER 244.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lee, Maria. 2003. What is Private Nuisance? Law Quarterly Review 119: 298–325.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd [1957] AC 555.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Malone, Wex S. 1970–1971. “Ruminations on the Role of Fault in the History of the Common Law of Torts.” Louisiana Law Review 31: 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Michell v. Allestry (1685) 3 Keb. 650; 84 ER 932.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Millner, M. A. 1965. “The Retreat of Trespass.” Current Legal Problems 18: 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mitchil v Alestree (1676) 1 Vent. 295; 86 ER 190.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Morris, C. Robert Jr. 1961. Enterprise Liability and the Actuarial Process—The Insignificance of Foresight. Yale Law Journal 70: 554–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Murphy, John. 2010. The Law of Nuisance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Navenby v. Lascelles (1368) B & M 552.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Newark, F. H. 1949. The Boundaries of Nuisance. Law Quarterly Review 65: 480–490.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Pollock, Frederick and Frederic Maitland. 1895. History of English Law before the Time of Edward I. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Pollock, Frederick. 1882. Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics. London: Macmillan and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  54. R v. Woodfall (1770) 5 Burr. 2776.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Read v. J Lyons and Company [1947] AC 156.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Restatement (First) of Torts, American Law Institute (1938).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Restatement (Second) of Torts, American Law Institute (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Restatement (Third) of Torts, American Law Institute (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Rex v. Pease (1832) 4 B & Ad. 30; 110 ER 366.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Rich v. Kneeland (1613) Cro. Jac. 330; 79 ER 282.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 AC 330.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Sayre, Francis Bowes. 1932. Mens Rea. Harvard Law Review 45: 974–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sedleigh-Denfield v. O’Callaghan [1940] AC 880.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Simpson, A. W. B. 1984. Legal Liability for Bursting Reservoirs: The Historical Context of Rylands v. Fletcher. Journal of Legal Studies 13: 209–264.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Smith, Jeremiah. 1917. Tort and Absolute Liability: Suggested Changes in Classification. Harvard Law Review 30: 241–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Spring v. Guardian Assurance Plc [1995] 2 AC 296.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Stanley v. Powell [1891] 1 QB 86.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Tarry v. Ashton (1876) 1 QBD 314.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Tenant v. Goodwin (1705) 2 Ld. Raym. 1089; 92 ER 222.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Torette House Pty Ltd v. Berkman (1940) 62 CLR 637.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway (1860) 5 H & N 679; 156 ER 667.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Weaver v. Ward (1616) Hob. 134; 80 ER 284.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Weir, Tony. 1998. The Staggering March of Negligence. In The Law of Obligations: Essays in Celebration of John Fleming, ed. Peter Cane and Jane Stapleton, 97–138. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Winfield, P. H. 1931. Nuisance as a Tort. The Cambridge Law Journal 4: 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. ———. 1926. The History of Negligence in the Law of Torts. Law Quarterly Review 42: 184–201.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern Queensland, Ipswich, QLD, Australia

    Anthony Gray

Authors
  1. Anthony Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony Gray .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia

    Sarah McKibbin

  2. School of Law and Justice, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia

    Jeremy Patrick

  3. University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia

    Marcus K. Harmes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gray, A. (2022). The Historical Development of the Fault Basis of Liability in the Law of Torts. In: McKibbin, S., Patrick, J., Harmes, M.K. (eds) The Impact of Law's History. Palgrave Modern Legal History. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90068-7_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90068-7_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-90067-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-90068-7

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation