Injury to autonomy as actionable damage in negligence, contract and consumer protection

The project examines whether injury to autonomy (ITA) ought be compensated as a stand alone injury in negligence, contract law and consumer law, and the extent to which it is remedied in different jurisdictions including England, Israel, Singapore and the USA. Major findings are that it is useful to distinguish between three types of ITA but courts often confuse them, that the constitutive elements of a stand-alone claim are significant choice, reliance interest and irreversibility, that English law protects ITA as actionable, so that Shaw v Kovac could be explained away, but that it remedies ITA inconsistently and in a gender-biased way; and that ITA ought to be protected in appropriate cases as a stand alone injury.

Tsachi Keren-Paz, ‘Gender Injustice in Compensating Injury to Autonomy in English and Singaporean Negligence Law’ (2018) Feminist Legal Studies 1-23.
Tsachi Keren-Paz, ‘Compensating Injury to Autonomy in English Negligence Law: Inconsistent Recognition’ (2018) 26(4) Medical Law Review 585-609. 
Tsachi Keren-Paz, ‘Compensating injury to autonomy: A conceptual and normative analysis’ in Barker, Fairweather & Grantham (eds.), Private Law in the Twenty-First Century (Hart, 2017) 411-37.

An earlier analysis of Israeli law became a major reference point in the literature and was cited in several Israeli Supreme Court decisions: Tsachi Keren-Paz, ‘Compensating Injury to Autonomy: Normative Evaluation, Recent Developments and Future Tendencies’ (2007) 22 Colman Law Review 187-266.