Law Commons^™

Comments On Maki V. Frelk, Harry Kalven Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

My first reaction to the performance of the Illinois Appellate Court in Maki v. Frelk was to recall the old joke about the man who, when asked if he believed in baptism, replied: "Believe in it, hell, I've seen it done!" In any event the decision provides a twin stimulus to the commentator: first, to say something about the limits of common law change, and second, to say something about comparative negligence itself. Despite the spectacular novelty of the court's action, these re-main well-worn topics on which it will not be easy to say anything fresh. I am, however, moved …

Comments On Maki V. Frelk--Comparative V.Contributory Negligence: Should The Court Or Legislature Decide?, Fleming James Jr., Harry Kalven Jr., Robert E. Keeton, Robert A. Leflar, Wex S. Malone, John W. Wade

Vanderbilt Law Review

Believing that the holdings and opinions in the case of Maki v. Frelkare significant legal developments, the Vanderbilt Law Review has solicited comments on these decisions, which it is now pleased to publish. These comments by six distinguished torts teachers and writers bear on the relative merits of comparative and contributory negligence, but more importantly, they discuss whether the judicial or legislative method is most appropriate for adoption of a rule of comparative negligence. It is hoped that these comments will be used as a sound basis for action, whether the problem arises before the courts or legislatures.

Comment, Robert E. Keeton

Vanderbilt Law Review

Part of the price we pay for a system wisely dedicated to even-handed justice under law is that courts often fail to identify those exceptional cases in which the highest aims of the system are served rather than threatened by a judicial break with precedent. Thus it happens that in the long, slow story of law reform, a recent case in the Illinois courts raised hopes for a rare and distinctive breakthrough. In Maki v. Frelk, responding to an invitation from the state's supreme court to reexamine the well entrenched rule that contributory negligence of an injured person is a …

Comment, Wex S. Malone

Vanderbilt Law Review

There is no discernible reluctance by courts to direct verdicts on the issue of the plaintiff's carelessness in suits by invitees against proprietors of business premises. The writer has had occasion to examine a representative group of about two hundred cases in this area where contributory negligence was seriously in issue. In more than a third of these disputes the appellate courts had either approved the trial judge's action in directing a defendant verdict, or had reversed a judgment for plaintiff because the trial court had allowed the controversy to reach the jury on the contributory negligence issue. I have …

Comment, Robert A. Leflar

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is increasingly common today for courts to render opinions as they did in an earlier common law era, that is, to answer the principally litigated issue first, then to give answers to incidental questions that are apt to arise thereafter. Admittedly these incidental answers are dicta only, but they are substantially authoritative and serve useful purposes. By employing such a technique, appellate courts can do a better job than legislatures usually have done in promulgating comparative negligence rules. With respect to matters upon which the legislature has never taken any position, legislative inaction constitutes no affirmative assertion of legislative …

Comment, James Fleming Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

Within the past few years, courts have put nearly the whole field of products liability on a strict liability basis, free from the restrictions of privity; they have reversed the rule of non-liability for pre-natal injuries; they have virtually destroyed charitable immunity, while making serious inroads on governmental immunity. Some, of course, have deplored the role of courts in making these changes, and they will probably applaud the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in the Maki case. But for those of us who accept or welcome the present regeneration of judicial law making in the field of torts, further questions are …

Comment, John W. Wade

Vanderbilt Law Review

The majority opinion in the Illinois Supreme Court held that if a change was to be made, the task was for the legislature, not the court. The five in the majority were not ready to deliver an opinion like that in MacPherson, Henningsen, Greenman.' If they had, there is real reason to believe that a similar consequence of an immediate and substantial judicial following would have developed. Without saying so, they seemed to be influenced by the thought that they would be complete pioneers in uncharted territory, with no precedents to rely upon or to interpret. Are there any judicial …

Recent Cases, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Law Review

Conflict of Laws--Significant Interest Doctrine Extended to Marital Property Litigation

===========================

Constitutional Law-Search and Seizure--Fourth Amendment Restrictions Apply to Electronic Eavesdropping When Conversations Are Private--Physical Trespass Test Discarded

===========================

Constitutional Law-Section 5(a) (1) (D) Prohibiting Members of Communist-Action Organizations from Employment in Defense Facilities Held Unconstitutional Infringement Upon Freedom of Association

===========================

Criminal Law--Evidence-Unauthorized Juror View Violates Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation

===========================

Domestic Relations--Intentional False Representation of Pregnancy Grounds for Annulment

===========================

Income Tax--Corporations--Attorneys' and Accountants' Fees Incurred in Sale of Assets Pursuant to a Section 337 Liquidation Are Not Deductible

===========================

Interest--Usury--Charging Debtor with Statutory Maximum Loan Fees …