The Defense of Necessity Considered from the Legal and Moral Points of View
Christie, George C.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by4
- 2023In re McDonald's Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation Del. Ch.
- 2022Lebanon County Employees' Retirement Fund v. Steven H. Collis Del. Ch.
- 2011United States v. Fraser 10th Cir.
- 2006Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs & Washington Legal Foundation v. Von Eschenbach D.C. Cir.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
Questions concerning the scope of the defense of necessity frequently arise in a variety of legal and philosophical discussions. Professor Christie grapples with the questions raised by this defense: When can property be taken or destroyed to save human life? Must compensation always be paid? Can one destroy the property of others to save one's own property?
Can one kill an innocent person to save the lives of a greater number of people? Professor Christie submits that much of the discussion of these difficult questions is too abstract and based on too cursory a review of the few legal authorities on the subject. He explores the authorities in depth, and concludes, among other things, that someone who destroys property to save human life is not generally required to pay compensation for the property destroyed, and that private individuals can never use the defense of necessity, even when multiple human lives are threatened, to justify intentionally taking innocent human life.