The phrase "a case for liability" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in legal or business contexts when discussing the justification or reasoning for holding someone responsible for a particular action or event.
Example: "The evidence presented in court made a compelling case for liability against the defendant for the damages caused."
Alternatives: "justification for liability" or "argument for liability".
The matter will also be the subject of a coroner's inquiry, where a jury of six Pasco residents, at least three of whom will be Hispanic, will determine if a case for criminal liability exists.
WALL STREET JOURNAL A Case for Legal Liability at Lehman | Sunday evening's installment of "60 Minutes" takes another look at the fall of Lehman Brothers, asking "why no one at Lehman has been called to account".
While liability should be imposed when the benefit exceeds the harm, the case for liability becomes weaker when the harm is larger than the benefit.
When the benefit to the injurer exceeds the harm to the victim, liability should be imposed, whereas if the harm is larger than the benefit the case for liability becomes much weaker.
Whether in the 1920s or in 2013, flagrantly repudiating responsibility is made possible by the smug knowledge that women are, generally speaking, less likely to be able to successfully make the case for liability -- due to economic inequality and durable cultural tropes.
In this Article we compare the benefits of product liability to its costs and conclude that the case for product liability is weak for a wide range of products.
In The Uneasy Case for Product Liability, we maintained that the benefits of product liability are likely to be less than its costs for many products, especially widely sold ones.
The author makes a convincing argument that this case set a precedent for liability without negligence that ultimately almost destroyed the vaccine industry in the United States.
A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, The Uneasy Case for Product Liability, 123 Harv.
Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, The Uneasy Case for Product Liability, 123 Harv.
The major claim that Goldberg and Zipursky develop is that our benefit-cost analysis fails to demonstrate that the case for product liability is uneasy.
