THE SHORT LIFE AND LONG AFTER LIFE OF CHARITABLE IMMUNITY IN THE COMMON LAW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many people think that charities and other altruistic organisations should enjoy special protection from claims in negligence or special protection from having their assets seized in payment of their liabilities . This is the doctrine of charitable immunity. The doctrine had a brief life in England a century and a half ago and was then abolished. Despite its abolition, however, the concepts, which underlie the doctrine, keep popping up in legal argument, seemingly without recognition that these concepts have been fully considered by many courts throughout the common law world and rejected by them. This article traces the history of the doctrine and the concepts that gave it life and demonstrates that, since the middle of the nineteenth century, most courts in Great Britain, the United States of America and Canada have recognised that the protection of charitable property from tort liability is purely a matter for public policy and have accepted that no policy sustainable in a democratic society presents itself for doing so. Accordingly, modern law rejects the doctrine, whether it is presented as an application of the law of torts, the law of trusts or the law of charities, and whether it is said to apply to the enterprise, its assets or both.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".