Author Description

This Book Traces The Evolution Of The King Can Do No Wrong In Legal Thinking To Revisit Our Current Understanding Of Crown Liability. Arguing That The King Can Do No Wrong Is One Of The Most Fundamental Yet Most Misunderstood Ideas Of The Common Law Tradition, The Book Describes Ways In Which These Misunderstandings Have Serious Consequences, Most Dramatically By Making It Difficult-and Sometimes Impossible-for Individuals To Successfully Sue The State For The Harm Caused To Them By Governmental Institutions. This Book Offers A Novel Framework For Understanding The Core Features Of Legal Thinking On Crown Liability As They Developed Historically. The Book Delves Deep Into Traditional Legal Sources To Develop An Intellectual History Of A Key Legal Idea. The Different Meanings Conveyed By The King Can Do No Wrong In The Common Law World Are Explained And The Contradictions Between Them Are Revealed. The Mutation From The King Can Do No Wrong To The Crown Can Do No Wrong Is Brought To Light, And The Resulting Departure From Core Constitutional Tenets Is Discussed. The Study Of The Evolution Of The King Can Do No Wrong In English Legal Thinking, Mirrored In Canada, Is Complemented By A Historical Comparative Analysis Of The Idea In Australia, Ireland And The United States, Including Its Relationship With Sovereign Immunity. By Retracing The Historical Constitutional Foundations Of The King Can Do No Wrong, This Book Enhances Academics', Students', Practioners', And Judges' Understanding Of The Law Of Governmental Liability In The Common Law World And Its Relationship With Constitutional Fundamentals-- Provided By Publisher.