Seven Critics

Abstract This article responds to seven Comments on my book, R easonableness and R isk : R ight and R esponsibility in the L aw of T orts (Oxford, 2022). Inter alia , the comments question whether, on my view, torts are really wrongs; whether harm-based strict liabilities are conditional wrongs; whether my account of harm in the law of torts is objectionably stigmatizing; whether it can make sense of tort’s measurement of damages and its treatment of relational harm; whether my view can capture the relational character of tort duties; whether my view is deontological or instrumental; and whether I can account for tort law’s distinction between affirmative and negative duties. I argue that, for the most part, these objections can be met and suggest how.