Statutory interpretation, capture, and tort law: the regulatory compliance defense

Schwartz, Alan

doi:10.1093/aler/2.1.1

Cited by 28 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…49 The Health and Safety Executive in England has used compliance with IEC 61508 50 as a guideline for bringing legal actions if harm is caused by safety-critical systems. 46 As compliance with safety standards has become essential evidence for a jury in a product liability action, 51 failure or inadequate compliance could lead to legal risks, that is, penalties 52 and prosecutions. 53 In particular, prescriptive safety standards cover requirements for all software life cycle activities and exist in almost all safety-related domains, for example, ISO 26262 54 (automotive), CENELEC EN 50128 55 (railway), DO-178C 56 (avionics), and IEC 62304 57 (medical devices), to only mention some of them.…”

Section: Software Process-related Normative Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Health and Safety Executive in England has used compliance with IEC 61508 50 as a guideline for bringing legal actions if harm is caused by safety‐critical systems 46 . As compliance with safety standards has become essential evidence for a jury in a product liability action, 51 failure or inadequate compliance could lead to legal risks, that is, penalties 52 and prosecutions 53 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Compliance checking of software processes: A systematic literature review

Ardila

Gallina

Muram

2022

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The processes used to develop software need to comply with normative requirements (e.g., standards and regulations) to align with the market and the law. Manual compliance checking is challenging because there are numerous requirements with changing nature and different purposes. Despite the importance of automated techniques, there is not any systematic study in this field. This lack may hinder organizations from moving toward automated compliance checking practices. In this paper, we characterize the methods for automatic compliance checking of software processes, including used techniques, potential impacts, and challenges. For this, we undertake a systematic literature review (SLR) of studies reporting methods in this field. As a result, we identify solutions that use different techniques (e.g., anthologies and metamodels) to represent processes and their artifacts (e.g., tasks and roles). Various languages, which have diverse capabilities for managing competing and changing norms, and agile strategies, are also used to represent normative requirements. Most solutions require tool‐support concretization and enhanced capabilities to handle processes and normative diversity. Our findings outline compelling areas for future research. In particular, there is a need to select suitable languages for consolidating a generic and normative‐agnostic solution, increase automation levels, tool support, and boost the application in practice by improving usability aspects.

show abstract

Section: Software Process-related Normative Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compliance checking of software processes: A systematic literature review

Ardila

Gallina

Muram

2022

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In many of these cases, following the standards imposed by regulation does not exonerate firms from facing liability (Schwartz, 2000). Therefore, the firms that face high expected liability have incentives to take more precautions than required by regulation, whereas firms that face a smaller liability threat merely comply with the regulatory standard.…”

Section: Joint Use Of Liability and Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Joint Use of Liability and Regulation in Environmental Law

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. www.econstor.eu Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may INSTITUTE OF LAW AND ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER SERIES Joint Use of Liability and Regulation in Environmental LawStephan Michel Alessandro Romano Ugo Zannini Working Paper 2017 No. 5 NOTE: ILE working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed.© 2017 by the authors. All rights reserved. April 2017 Joint Use of Liability and Regulation in Environmental LawStephan Michel , Alessandro Romano , Ugo Zannini * April 11, 2017 AbstractIn this paper, we argue that the joint use of ex-ante regulation and ex-post liability rules is efficient when there are uncertainty surrounding causal investigations and regulatory myopia. As these conditions are generally met in environmental cases, we provide an explanation for the frequent coexistence of these two instruments to control activities that create a risk for the environment. Moreover, we suggest that a joint use of liability and regulation should more frequently be optimal at the European (Federal) level than at the Country (State) level.

show abstract

“…See, on the issue whether compliance with federal safety statues should have a justifi cative eff ect in state tort cases, A. Schwartz (2000).…”

Section: Compliance With Regulation and Liabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Liability

Faure

2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

show abstract

Statutory interpretation, capture, and tort law: the regulatory compliance defense

Cited by 28 publications

References 31 publications

Compliance checking of software processes: A systematic literature review

Compliance checking of software processes: A systematic literature review

Joint Use of Liability and Regulation in Environmental Law

Environmental Liability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About