This essay examines two contemporary philosophical accounts of tort law and seeks to show that they face two closely related problems: that of method and of fit. The first problem holds that the method philosophical accounts of tort law actually adopt is in one vital respect structurally similar to that used by Economic Analysis of Law. The difficulty that arises is that these philosophical accounts of tort law cannot therefore distinguish themselves from economic accounts on the ground that they are methodologically superior. There is, in fact, a degree of panty between these philosophical accounts of tort, on the one hand, and economic accounts, on the other, with regard to the way in which they accommodate the details of, and the views of the participants in, the institution of tort law, its constitutive practices, and doctrines. This, of course, is hot to say that the content of our two sample philosophical accounts of tort law is the same as the content of economic accounts.
