This Comment on John Witt's Article examines the uses of the different kinds of history of accident law that Witt identifies. I argue that the significant distinction, for those who seek to use accidental law's history in normative legal scholarship, is between what Witt calls "contingency" and "inevitability" narratives, on the one hand, and "immanence" narratives, on the other hand. The former tend to permit us to argue about accident law's future, whereas the latter tend to constrain us.
Citation
Kenneth S. Abraham, The Uses of Accident Law’s Past, 1 Journal of Tort Law (2007).