In a number of important decisions such as ""Stovin v. Wise"", ""X v. Bedfordshire"", ""Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council"" and others, English courts have been forced to contend with the important issue of tortious liability of statutory bodies.
Following the ""Hill"" decision, they opted for a wide non-liability rule on a variety of policy and economic efficiency grounds. Yet many of their arguments have been considered and rejected by both German and French courts when deciding factually equivalent situations.
This study analyses five leading English cases in a comparative and economic way, and questions the validity of their assumptions as well as their arguments in the light of the recent important decision of the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights in ""Osman v. UK"".
.jpg?1680780797)
