Kristian Cedervall Lauta

When a Right is a Wrong: Compensation for Acts of Necessity

Abstract The article analyses legal theory on compensation for acts of necessity. It set out to answer why a legally sanctioned act should be subject to compensation as a tort. The article accounts for present doctrines and theories. Based on this overview, the article suggest that the field presently operates from a shared set of idealised facts and that this limits the application of the prevalent theories. In order to devise a more flexible model, the article approaches the issue of compensation as inherent in the necessity decision itself. This sets out to solve the issue of compensation on a case-to-case basis under consideration of what causes the least possible interference. Accordingly, the issue of compensation must include a wide range of arguments and interests, rather than one structuring rule.