Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
See No Fiduciary, Hear No Fiduciary: A Lawyer’S Knowledge Within Aiding And Abetting Fiduciary Breach Claims, Brinkley Rowe
See No Fiduciary, Hear No Fiduciary: A Lawyer’S Knowledge Within Aiding And Abetting Fiduciary Breach Claims, Brinkley Rowe
Fordham Law Review
Fiduciary liability for attorney conduct generally extends only to direct clients of legal services. Over the last few decades, however, the lawyer’s role has expanded. Following this trend, fiduciary liability also has expanded to allow third-party claims in certain limited circumstances. One example is the attorney aiding and abetting a client’s fiduciary breach claim. One of the key requirements for liability under this claim is the attorney’s knowledge of his client’s fiduciary relationship with the third party alleging the breach. Within those jurisdictions that have accepted the claim, there are two approaches to the knowledge element. The first is the …
Defining “Accidents” In The Air: Why Tort Law Principles Are Essential To Interpret The Montreal Convention’S “Accident” Requirement, Alexa West
Fordham Law Review
This Note examines the history of, and the reasons for, the Montreal Convention, which in part forces airlines to indemnify passengers for injuries resulting from “accidents”—a term undefined in the treaty. The Montreal Convention and the subsequent case law interpreting it demonstrate how, to qualify as an “accident,” the injury-producing incident must be causally connected to the plane’s operation. Importantly, the causal connection’s adequacy should be evaluated according to American tort jurisprudence even though the accident requirement itself is an exception to general tort law. This Note focuses on a particular type of injury-producing event, a copassenger tort, because of …
The Strict Liability In Fault And The Fault In Strict Liability, John C.P. Goldberg, Benjamin C. Zipursky
The Strict Liability In Fault And The Fault In Strict Liability, John C.P. Goldberg, Benjamin C. Zipursky
Fordham Law Review
Tort scholars have long been obsessed with the dichotomy between strict liability and liability based on fault or wrongdoing. We argue that this is a false dichotomy. Torts such as battery, libel, negligence, and nuisance are wrongs, yet all are “strictly” defined in the sense of setting objective and thus quite demanding standards of conduct. We explain this basic insight under the heading of “the strict liability in fault.” We then turn to the special case of liability for abnormally dangerous activities, which at times really does involve liability without wrongdoing. Through an examination of this odd corner of tort …
Reasonable Supervision In The City: Enhancing The Safety Of Students With Disabilities In Urban (And Other) Schools, Lynn M. Daggett
Reasonable Supervision In The City: Enhancing The Safety Of Students With Disabilities In Urban (And Other) Schools, Lynn M. Daggett
Fordham Urban Law Journal
No abstract provided.