Law Commons^™

A Watershed Moment: Reversals Of Tort Theory In The Nineteenth Century, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

This article offers a new assessment of the stages in the development of fault and strict liability and their justifications in American history. Building from the evidence that a wide majority of state courts adopted Fletcher v. Rylands and strict liability for unnatural or hazardous activities in the late nineteenth century, a watershed moment turns to the surprising reversals in tort ideology in the wake of flooding disasters.

An established view of American tort law is that the fault rule supposedly prevailed over strict liability in the nineteenth century, with some arguing that it was based on instrumental arguments to …

Americans Abroad: International Educational Programs And Tort Liability, Vincent R. Johnson

Faculty Articles

In recent decades, the number of foreign programs operated by American colleges and universities has greatly expanded. Until recently, there were few reported cases involving claims arising from foreign educational ventures. However, the increase in international study abroad programs has been paralleled by an increase in tort claims. Additionally, because of the tendency of tort cases to be settled, the number of unreported cases, based on harm to students participating in study abroad programs, may be considerably larger than what appears in legal research databases.

Given the high cost of potential litigation, a program provider has no choice but to …

A Restatement (Third) Of Intentional Torts?, Kenneth Simons

Faculty Scholarship

Some intentional tort doctrines have developed in intriguing ways since the Restatement Second was published, and other doctrines remain contentious or obscure. For example, disagreement persists about whether the tort of battery requires merely the (single) intent to make a nonconsensual contact, or the (dual) intent both (1) to contact and (2) either to harm or to offend. The single intent view is much more plausible; the dual intent view cannot make much sense of the liability of well-intentioned doctors for battery if they exceed the patient's consent, or the liability of pranksters, or the well-accepted doctrine of apparent consent. …

The Supreme Court And Our Culture Of Irresponsibility, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article chronicles the Supreme Court's expansion of the “culture of irresponsibility,” where institutional defendants are freed from tort liability with no check on the abuse of such immunity. Professor Davis describes the Court's progression toward immunity in products liability decisions of the past decade including East River Steamship, Boyle, Cipollone, and Lohr. Noting the effect of the Court's decisions in promoting institutional irresponsibility, Professor Davis encourages the Court to use its “cultural influence” and reconsider its broad extension of immunity which has spread to situations and institutional defendants the Court never imagined.

Comments To The Reporters And Selected Members Of The Consultative Group, Restatement Of Torts (Third): Products Liability, Howard C. Klemme

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Fault Concept In Personal Injury Cases In Minnesota: Implications For Tort Reform, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

Legislative tort reform proposals have attempted to restore what is perceived to be an imbalance in the tort-litigation system by limiting tort recoveries. One of the motivating factors behind tort reform proposals is a concern that tort law has deviated from a fault-based system of liability. It is this concern over the structure of the fault system in Minnesota that is the subject of this Article. This Article examines Minnesota Supreme Court opinions of the 20th Century to determine whether the court's decisions deviated from a fault-based system of liability. The focus is on change, accepted and rejected. The purpose …

A Comparative Negligence Checklist To Avoid Future Unnecessary Litigation, John M. Rogers, Randy Donald Shaw

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Systems of comparative negligence, whereby the negligence of a plaintiff serves to reduce rather than to preclude tort recovery in negligence, have been adopted in thirty-nine states. The common law rule that contributory negligence is an absolute bar to recover is still the law in Kentucky, although modified by the doctrine of “last clear chance.” Kentucky may soon join the trend toward comparative negligence, however. In the last legislative session, bills to adopt comparative negligence were introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. A hearing on this subject was held by the Interim Judiciary and Civil Procedure …

The Enterprise Liability Theory Of Torts, Howard C. Klemme

Publications

No abstract provided.

Toward A Test For Strict Liability In Torts, Jon T. Hirschoff, Guido Calabresi

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Soviet Tort Law: The New Principles Annotated, Whitmore Gray

Articles

In 1961, the federal legislature, the USSR Supreme Soviet, finally adopted a skeleton code of fundamental principles of civil law.10 This recodification, which incorporates 40 years of case law and doctrinal development as well as some major innovations, will be the basis for individual civil codes to be adopted in each of the 15 union republics. While there may be some slight modifications, and certainly some variety in the degree of additional detail included in the individual codes by each republic,11 these Principles present already a fairly comprehensive picture of the shape of the future law. They are about as …

Liability Without Fault, John B. Waite

Articles

In Ives v. South Buffalo Ry. Co., 201 N. Y. 271, appeared, as a basis for the decision, the statement that "When our Constitutions were adopted, it was the law of the land that no man who was without fault or negligence could be held liable in damages for injuries sustained by another. That is still the law." Mr. Justice McKenna has recently voiced the same idea. In his dissenting opinion in Arizona Copper Co. v. Hammer, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 553, he contends that the Workmen's Compensation Act of Arizona is unconstitutional, because, "It seems to me to be …