Law Commons^™

Causation In Tort Law: A Reconsideration, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

Causation is a source of confusion in tort theory, as well as a flash point for the debate between consequentialist and deontological legal theorists.¹ Consequentialists argue that causation is generally determined by the policy grounds for negligence, not by a technical analysis of the facts.² Conversely, deontologists reject the view that policy motives determine causation findings.

Causation has also generated different approaches within the consequentialist school. Some take an essentially forward- looking approach to formalizing causation analysis, finding causation analysis to be subsumed within the Hand Formula.⁴ Another approach within the consequentialist school closely examines the incentive …

A Case For A Bill Recognizing Primary Assumption Of Risk As Limiting Liability For Persons And Providers Who Take Part In Sports & Recreational Activities, J. Russell Versteeg

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Emergence Of The "Tender Years" Doctrine: Too Young To Drink, But Capable Of Escaping The Civil Consequences?, William R. Slomanson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Negligence, Causation, And Incentives For Care, Keith N. Hylton, Haizhen Lin

Faculty Scholarship

We present a new model of negligence and causation and examine the influence of the negligence test, in the presence of intervening causation, on the level of care. In this model, the injurer's decision to take care reduces the likelihood of an accident only in the event that some nondeterministic intervention occurs. The effects of the negligence test depend on the information available to the court, and the manner in which the test is implemented. The key effect of the negligence test, in the presence of intervening causation, is to induce actors to take into account the distribution of the …

The Supreme Court's Bright Line Ruling In Riegel V. Medtronic, Inc. Gives Manufacturers Of Defective Medical Devices Broad Immunity, Sadaf Bathaee

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

"The Harshness And Injustice Of The Common Law Rule... Has Frequenly Been Commented Upon": Debating Contributory Negligence In Canada, 1914-1949, R Blake Brown, Noelle Yhard

Dalhousie Law Journal

In the early twentieth century many legal professionals damned the law of contributory negligence as complicated and unfair to plaintiffs barred from recovery, while businesspeople often complained thatjudges and juries refused to find sympathetic plaintiffs contributorily negligent. Elite Canadian lawyers, through their work in the Canadian Bar Association and the Commission on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada, proposed model contributory negligence legislation that a number of provinces subsequently adopted. Reviews of these statutes were mixed however The large body of existing case law, despite its complications, encouraged some lawyers and judges to fall back on older jurisprudence in interpreting the …

Secure My Data Or Pay The Price: Consumer Remedy For The Negligent Enablement Of Data Breach, John A. Fisher

William & Mary Business Law Review

Every time we swipe our debit cards, pay our bills online, or sign up for a service like Netflix, we are entrusting important identifying information to the companies with which we do business. Most of the time, those companies take seriously the obligation to protect our data and prevent it from falling into the hands of those who would use it to benefit themselves at our expense. Some companies, however, fail to do enough to meet that burden, making it easier for identity thieves to inflict personal and financial injury on consumers. To date, our legal system has essentially denied …

California Expands Tort Liability Under The Novel Market Share Theory: Sindell V. Abbott Laboratories, N. Denise Taylor

Pepperdine Law Review

The California Supreme Court, in the novel and unprecedented case of Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, eliminated the plaintiffs burden of identification of a negligent party, and thus the causation requirement, in a multiple party tort action. In the course of this decision, the court adopted the "market share" theory of liability which dictated in Sindell that nonidentifiable defendant-manufacturers of the generic drug DES would be liable for the damages in proportion to their share of business in the market. The author thoroughly examines various theories of recovery, such as "alternative liability," "concert of action" and "enterprise liability," which the court …

Molien V. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals: Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress, Michael P. Messina

Pepperdine Law Review

In Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the California Supreme Court recognized that the interest in freedom from negligent infliction of mental distress is a protectable interest, and that an accompanying physical injury need not exist in order to recover damages. The author presents a discussion of the history and policies behind the right to recover from negligently inflicted emotional distress. The author also discusses and analyzes the court's opinion in Molien and agrees with the court that the fears of opening the floodgate of litigation which before Molien precluded recovery, was arbitrary. Finally, the author concludes that the holding is …

Police Shootings - Administrative Law As A Method Of Control Over Police: Peterson V. City Of Long Beach, James Wright

Pepperdine Law Review

Professor Kenneth Davis has long advocated that police manuals should be viewed as interpretative administrative rules, which would guide police in their daily activities. He argued that police departments should not fear adopting interpretative rules because such rules would not be binding; therefore, the department would not be subject to tort liability if an officer violated such a rule. In Peterson v. City of Long Beach, a police officer violated the police manual when he shot and killed a non-violent fleeing suspect. The California Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Frank Newman, cited Professor Davis and his call for …

Hubbard V. Boelt: The Fireman's Rule Extended , Marty K. Deniston

Pepperdine Law Review

The California Supreme Court, in Hubbard v. Boelt, extended the reach of the fireman's rule to bar a suit brought by a policeman who was injured by the willful and wanton conduct of a speeding motor is while pursuing that motorist. This is an important development in tort law because, traditionally, the fireman's rule had only been applied to bar suits by firemen and policemen who were injured by the negligent conduct of another which was the cause of their presence at the scene. This author suggests that the majority's rationale underlying this extension was flawed because of the fundamental …

Easton: The Birth Of Negligence In Real Estate Broker-Purchaser Relationships, Gilbert A. Partida

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Evolving Doctrine Of Union Liability For Health And Safety In The Workplace. Warning: Collective Bargaining Can Be Hazardous To Your Union's Health, Jeffrey S. Wohlner

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comparative Negligence And Mitigation Of Damages: Two Sister Doctrines In Search Of Reunion, Dr. Yehuda Adar

Yehuda Adar Dr.

This article addresses a puzzle in Anglo-American tort law. Notwithstanding the now unquestionable victory of comparative negligence over the old all- or-nothing doctrine of contributory negligence, the doctrine of mitigation (or avoidable consequences) remains intact. Under comparative negligence, any loss that the victim could have avoided is apportioned between the victim and the tortfeasor. In contrast, under the doctrine of mitigation, a tort victim can never recover for any element of loss that could have been avoided. The apparent tension between these two loss allocation mechanisms was identified by the drafters of the Third Restatement of Torts, which proposed abolishing …

The Domagala Dilemma-Domagala V. Rolland, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

In Domagala v. Rolland, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review in a personal injury case that was dominated by duty and special relationship issues, even though the parties agreed that there was no special relationship between them. The case, straddling the misfeasance/nonfeasance line, was complicated by the defense theory (that the lack of a special relationship meant that the defendant owed no duty to protect or warn the plaintiff), and the plaintiff’s theory (that the defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff because he acted affirmatively, even if the risk to the plaintiff did not become apparent …