INTRODUCTION
questionable, not a received tradition which does not threaten to dissolved." [1] Those are the words of a critic of life and letters writing forty years ago, and watching the growing sceptisim of his day. I am tempted to apply his words to the history of the law. Hardly a rule of today but may be matched by its opposite of yesterday. Absolute liability for one's acts is today the exception; there must commonly be some tinge of fault, whether willful or negligent. Time was, however, when absolute liability was the rule. [2] Occasional reversions to the earlier type may be found in recent legislation. [3]
Mutual promises give rise to an obligation, and their breach to a right of action for damages. Time was when the
26
- ↑ Arnold, "Essays in Criticism," second series, p. I.
- ↑ Holdsworth, "History of English Law," 2, p. 41; Wigmore, "Responsibility for Tortious Acts," 7 Harvard L. R. 315, 383, 441; 3 Anglo-Am. Legal Essays 474; Smith, "Liability for Damage to Land," 33 Harvard L. R. 551; Ames, "Laws and Morals," 22 Harvard L. R. 97, 99; Isaacs, "Fault and Liability," 31 Harvard L. R. 954.
- ↑ Cf. Duguit, "Les Transformations générales du droit privé depuis le Code Napoléon," Continental Legal Hist. Series, vol. XI, pp. 125, 126, secs. 40, 42.
