Is Disability a Tort and Why?

Abstract Recent changes in conceptions of disability pose a challenge for tort law theory, which amounts to making sense of this area of law without reinforcing outdated negative views about disabled people. This article takes up this challenge by critically engaging with Gregory Keating’s recent book Reasonableness and Risk: Right and Responsibility in the Law of Torts (2022) . Drawing on social conceptions of disability and impairment, it criticizes Keating’s characterization of physical injury as a harm-based tort, one that diminishes people’s capacity for agency. By contrast, it suggests that physical injury is a sovereignty-based tort, which Keating defines as an unjust interference with people’s protected zones of discretion. This article argues that reconceptualizing physical injury like so provides a sound theoretical basis for tort law doctrine, including its prioritization of safety. It also better aligns with disabled people’s lived experiences and can reduce negative stereotypes of disabled people perpetuated by current tort law practice.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Law and Philosophy
Published
2025-05-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-025-09535-6
Primary Topic
Legal principles and applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Is Disability a Tort and Why?

Adi Goldiner
Law and Philosophy
Legal principles and applications
article

Is Disability a Tort and Why?

Adi Goldiner
article en

Abstract

Abstract Recent changes in conceptions of disability pose a challenge for tort law theory, which amounts to making sense of this area of law without reinforcing outdated negative views about disabled people. This article takes up this challenge by critically engaging with Gregory Keating’s recent book Reasonableness and Risk: Right and Responsibility in the Law of Torts (2022) . Drawing on social conceptions of disability and impairment, it criticizes Keating’s characterization of physical injury as a harm-based tort, one that diminishes people’s capacity for agency. By contrast, it suggests that physical injury is a sovereignty-based tort, which Keating defines as an unjust interference with people’s protected zones of discretion. This article argues that reconceptualizing physical injury like so provides a sound theoretical basis for tort law doctrine, including its prioritization of safety. It also better aligns with disabled people’s lived experiences and can reduce negative stereotypes of disabled people perpetuated by current tort law practice.

Law and PhilosophyVol. 45(1)
Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Openalex Percentile: Top 81%
Legal principles and applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Is Disability a Tort and Why? — Adi Goldiner · Law and Philosophy (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS