Law Commons^™

Minding Accidents, Teneille R. Brown

University of Colorado Law Review

Tort doctrine states that breach is all about conduct. Unlike in the criminal law context, where jurors must engage in amateur mindreading to evaluate mens rea, jurors are told that they can assess civil negligence by looking only at the defendant’s external behavior. But this is false. Here I explain why, by incorporating the psychology of foresight. Foreseeability is at the heart of negligence—appearing as the primary test for duty, breach, and proximate cause. And yet, it has been called a “vexing morass” and a “malleable standard” because it is so poorly understood. This Article refines and advances the construct …

Science Or Status Quo? Disregard For A Defendant's Mental Illness In Tort Suits, Gabrielle Lindquist

Washington Law Review Online

Mental illness is almost never considered when courts determine whether a defendant is liable for a tort. Nearly every United States jurisdiction—Washington state included—declines to offer a modified “reasonable person” standard for negligent tort defendants with mental illnesses or any form of mental illness-based affirmative defense for intentional tort defendants. There is much debate about whether tort law should evolve to accommodate defendants with mental illnesses. This Comment seeks to dive deeper into why that debate persists.

Although there are numerous justifications for this current state of tort law, the most common rationalizations given are twofold. First, that the primary …

Why Exempting Negligent Doctors May Reduce Suicide: An Empirical Analysis, John Shahar Dillbary, Griffin Edwards, Fredrick E. Vars

Indiana Law Journal

This Article is the first to empirically analyze the impact of tort liability on suicide. Counter-intuitively, our analysis shows that suicide rates increase when potential tort liability is expanded to include psychiatrists—the very defendants who would seem best able to prevent suicide. Using a fifty-state panel regression for 1981 to 2013, we find that states which allowed psychiatrists (but not other doctors) to be liable for malpractice resulting in suicide experienced a 9.3% increase in suicides. On the other hand, and more intuitively, holding non-psychiatrist doctors liable de-creases suicide by 10.7%. These countervailing effects can be explained by psychiatrists facing …

Parity At A Price: The Emerging Professional Liability Of Mental Health Providers, Thomas L. Hafemeister, Leah G. Mclaughlin, Jessica Smith

San Diego Law Review

This Article considers the issues associated with emerging professional liability claims against mental health care providers. Part II supplies background information regarding this liability, including the elements of these claims. Part III details the decreasing stigma associated with obtaining mental health services and its impact on professional liability, while Part IV summarizes advancements in mental health treatment that have enhanced the functional capacities of potential litigants. The remaining Parts explore changes in the delivery of mental health care where litigation may be focused, including the increasing use of psychotropic medications (Part V), the expanding role of primary care physicians and …

Negligence - Recovery For Negligently Inflicted Mental Distress Permitted To Mother Who Witnessed The Violent Death Of Her Child Even Though The Mother Was Outside Zone Of Danger, Bruce A. Issadore

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Negligently Inflicted Psychic Injuries: A Return To Reason, Alvan Brody

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.