Roderick Bagshaw is Tutor and Fellow in Law at Magdalen College and an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law. He teaches undergraduate courses in Administrative Law and Tort Law, and on the postgraduate BCL Evidence and Private Law and Fundamental Rights courses. He was formerly on the Executive Committee of the Society of Legal Scholars and the Convenor of the Society's Tort Law Subject Section. He is currently the Law Faculty's Director of Examinations.
Fellow of Mansfield College 1994-2002.
Lecturer, Jesus College, 1992-94.
- This chapter seeks to illuminate some of the issues that a lawmaker ought to consider when deciding in a particular context whether to design a tort law defence so that it requires the balancing of something on a defendants side against something on a claimants side, or balancing some public interest against something on the claimants side, with that balancing being conducted on the facts of the instant case.ISBN: 97818494652675th edition of this student textbook.ISBN: 978-1-292-07123-7Account of the process that led to the passing of the Animals Act 1971 and its subsequent interpretation.ISBN: 9781849461405Fourth edition of this textbookISBN: 9781408252703The principal theme of this chapter is that in pursuing the goal of making English tort law compatible with Convention rights, and the related goal of developing tort law so as to allow it to assist in protecting these rights, we should not lose sight of what makes a good tort duty. Lord Bingham commended the opinion that where a common law duty covers the same ground as a Convention right, it should, so far as practicable, develop in harmony with it (Van Colle v. Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police; Smith v. Chief Constable of Sussex Police  UKHL 50;  1 AC 225 at ). But this chapter aims to unsettle any assumption that such harmony requires the development of tort duties which mirror Convention rights, even in situations where the tort duties will be owed by public bodies. It is more important for newly developed duties to be harmonious with the goals of the law of torts than for them to replicate concepts used by the Strasbourg Court.ISBN: 9781107009325Most proponents of a rights-focused account of the law of torts argue that not only are there currently no general common law rights to pure economic benefits but there are also good reasons why general common law rights to purely economic benefits should not exist whilst general common law rights to property do, or good reasons why legislators or judges should not in future create or recognise general common law rights to purely economic benefits. The main purpose of this chapter is to evaluate these good reasons using three perspectives provided by the edges of currently recognised legal rights.ISBN: 9781849461429This chapter investigates the concept of cause which ought to be used by tort lawyers when making claims such as that Dereks wrongful behaviour caused Trevor to act in some way, in particular in circumstances where we regard Trevors action as voluntary rather than coerced. The central issue is whether a tort lawyers inquiry into whether Dereks wrongful behaviour caused Trevor to act in some way ought to be the same as an inquiry into whether Dereks wrongful behaviour caused the kettle to boil or the toaster to burn the toast.ISBN: 9781849460866ISBN: 978-0-52-119953-7This chapter explores the relationship between the capacity of tort law to achieve its goals and the nature of the concepts that are incorporated in the law.ISBN: 9781841139098Third edition of McBride and Bagshaw's Textbook on Tort.ISBN: 978-1-4058-5949-3DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-121X.2006.00007.xISBN: 1748-121XISBN: 0421-874708ISBN: 027368678XCasenote discussing Douglas v Hello! (no 3)ISBN: 0023-933XISBN: 0961-5768CasenoteISBN: 0023933XCasenote on Transco v Stockport MBCISBN: 0023-933X