ELIMINATING CORRECTIVE JUSTICE The Supreme Court quoting Weinrib’s concept of corrective justice, dismisses the plea against a number of pharmaceutical manufacturers by Alex .The medical side effects suffered by him due to negligent marketing of the drug CUD could not be attributed to any one pharmaceutical and thus no one could be held liable for the injury. Corrective justice deals with the maintenance and restoration of equality between two parties entering in a transaction. Corrective justice firstly, functions without regard to social rank or moral character; secondly, it regards the transacting parties as equals; and lastly, it focuses on the immediate relationship of doer to sufferer. Injustice and its rectification is the insight of …show more content…
In the case, Califano v. Yamasaki the “usual rule” was the “necessary parties rule,” that required “all persons materially interested, either as plaintiffs or defendants in the subject matter of the bill ought to be made parties to the suit, however numerous they may be.” Taking such past cases in consideration the question arises to whether corrective justice holds any relevance anymore (in negligence cases)? Now arises the issue of how to identify and price the remedy among the multiple defendants is given to distributive justice. According to Weinrib corrective and distributive justice are independent forms of justices while in tort law, distributive justice addresses to how the benefits of an organized society have to be distributed among its members while corrective justice deals with the distortion with the distributive schemes thus acting as the remedial arm of distributive …show more content…
The compensation proves the improvement and material gain but does not justify taking anything from the defendant Compensation is based on the plaintiffs need after the injury it does not encompass the defendants. In the case, there is a transaction that has taken place that automatically imposes a duty on the manufacturer to give information and warn the consumer of the foreseeable risks of the drug. Corrective justice cannot be applied as due to the concept of bipolarity it sacrifices the moral aspect and the correlativity undermines the compensation