Corrective justice and wrongful gain

This chapter makes a distinction between two questions: what grounds a victim's claim to recovery, and what justifies holding an injurer liable for the harms his conduct occasions. That these two questions are distinct can be seen from the fact that a society could permit all victims to seek compensation for all injuries (other than injuries that are self-imposed) while providing that injurers can be held liable only when their conduct is faulty or negligent. Such an arrangement might be undesirable, but that would be a normative matter, not an analytic one. In other words, it is not analytic...

This chapter makes a distinction between two questions: what grounds a victim's claim to recovery, and what justifies holding an injurer liable for the harms his conduct occasions. That these two questions are distinct can be seen from the fact that a society could permit all victims to seek compensation for all injuries (other than injuries that are self-imposed) while providing that injurers can be held liable only when their conduct is faulty or negligent. Such an arrangement might be undesirable, but that would be a normative matter, not an analytic one. In other words, it is not analytic that compensation flows from an injurer to a victim. That is tort practice, one that needs a defense. By distinguishing between the grounds and modes of recognition, the chapter tries to show how a scheme of no-fault liability can be made consistent with the demands of justice in liability.