Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Risk-Utility Balancing In Design Defect Cases, David G. Owen
Risk-Utility Balancing In Design Defect Cases, David G. Owen
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Design defectiveness is generally defined in terms of a risk-utility balance, the form of liability test adopted by the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability. However, confusion abounds in how courts formulate such balancing tests. A national survey of recent appellate court decisions reveals that courts generally define the balance in terms of the product's risks and utility, a formulation which appears to call for weighing the product's global costs against the product's global benefits. So defined, the design defect test is incorrect. What appellate courts mean for juries to decide, and what juries ordinarily do in fact decide, …
Warning Defect: Origins, Policies, And Directions, Robert E. Keeton
Warning Defect: Origins, Policies, And Directions, Robert E. Keeton
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
On a spectrum from the polar extreme of generality to the opposite pole of specificity, "What should warnings say?" is near the extreme in its degree of generality. A question phrased this way invites a correspondingly generic response. Such a response is not very useful to the trial judge and lawyers who regularly must fashion clear explanations on the law of warning defect for layperson juries. As used here, this question is not intended as a signal inviting just any kind of response that might be acceptable under the mores of casual conversation. It is a more serious request for …
Risk-Utility Analysis In The Failure To Warn Context, Paul D. Rheingold, Susan B. Feinglass
Risk-Utility Analysis In The Failure To Warn Context, Paul D. Rheingold, Susan B. Feinglass
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Elsewhere in this Symposium issue, Professor Mark Geistfeld presents an argument favoring the application of risk-utility analysis to the duty to warn doctrine encompassed by the Restatement (Third) of Torts. In addition, the comments and the reporters' notes to the Restatement (Third) suggest altering the traditional duty to warn if the warning would cause "information overload," if the danger is "open and obvious," or if the danger applies to only a small percentage of potential customers.
In response to Geistfeld and the Restatement (Third) comments and notes, Rheingold and Feinglass assert that applying a risk-utility analysis or altering the …
Juries: Arbiters Or Arbitrary?, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski
Juries: Arbiters Or Arbitrary?, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Playing The "Culture Card": Trials In A Mutli-Cultural Democracy, Richard O. Lempert
Playing The "Culture Card": Trials In A Mutli-Cultural Democracy, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
As I write, the racial divide in America is said to be greater than at any time in the past 25 years.' Two events are blamed: the O.J. Simpson criminal trial and the Louis Farrakan led "Million Man March." That these events should exacerbate racial division is extraordinary. The Farrakan led march brought together between 400,000 and 800,000 black males to pledge that they would take the kind of responsibility for their actions and their families that white Americans have long argued they should take. The O.J. Simpson trial was more a "who done it" than a racial morality play. …
Will The Punishment Fit The Victims? The Case For Pre-Trial Disclosure, And The Uncharted Future Of Victim Impact Information In Capital Jury Sentencing, José F. Anderson
Will The Punishment Fit The Victims? The Case For Pre-Trial Disclosure, And The Uncharted Future Of Victim Impact Information In Capital Jury Sentencing, José F. Anderson
All Faculty Scholarship
The United States Supreme Court decision in Payne v. Tennessee, upholding the use of victim impact statements in capital jury sentencing proceedings, marked one of the most dramatic reversals of a precedent in the history of United States constitutional jurisprudence. The decision in Payne expressly overruled Booth v. Maryland decided only four years earlier. The Booth case rejected the use of victim impact statements in capital sentencing cases that involved juries. In Payne, the Supreme Court made it clear that victims were entitled to offer, and juries were permitted to consider, the effect that a "death eligible" homicide had on …
"Countering Stereotypes." Review Of Medical Malpractice And The American Jury: Confronting The Myths About Jury Incompetence, Deep Pockets, And Outrageous Damage Awards, By N. Vidmar, Samuel R. Gross
Reviews
The story of The Medical Malpractice Trial has a place in popular American legal culture, somewhere on the shelf with Killers Who Got Off on Technicalities. The plot is simple and tragic. The protagonist is the Doctor, a good man with a flaw: He tries too hard. In the process, he makes an innocent mistake or believes he can prevent the unpreventable. In any event, he fails and the Patient dies or is permanently injured. For this unintentional error the Doctor is crucified, by the vengeful anger of the Patient or her survivors, the avarice of the plaintiffs' lawyer, the …
The Jury As Critic: An Empirical Look At How Capital Juries Perceive Expert And Lay Testimony, Scott E. Sundby
The Jury As Critic: An Empirical Look At How Capital Juries Perceive Expert And Lay Testimony, Scott E. Sundby
Articles
No abstract provided.
Why Civil Cases Go To Trial: Strategic Bargaining And The Desire For Vindication, Samuel R. Gross, Kent D. Syverud
Why Civil Cases Go To Trial: Strategic Bargaining And The Desire For Vindication, Samuel R. Gross, Kent D. Syverud
Articles
When negotiations break down and a dispute cannot be settled, attorneys commonly blame their adversaries, often questioning their ethics or their judgment. After interviewing many attorneys, we have come to believe much of the criticism is directed at strategic moves in negotiation. But strategic ploys are not the only reason dispute resolution fails. Rather, our research also suggest that a genuine desire for vindication through trial or other formal process may be very significant in some types of cases where bargaining breaks down.
Going To Trial: A Rare Throw Of The Die, Samuel R. Gross, Kent D. Syverud
Going To Trial: A Rare Throw Of The Die, Samuel R. Gross, Kent D. Syverud
Articles
If it is true, as we often hear, that we are one of the most litigious societies on earth, it is because of our propensity to sue, not our affinity for trials. Of the hundreds of thousands of civil lawsuits that are filed each year in America, the great majority are settled; of those that are not settled, most are ultimately dismissed by the plaintiffs or by the courts; only a few percent are tried to a jury or a judge. This is no accident. We prefer settlements and have designed a system of civil justice that embodies and expresses …
Hoodwink'd By Custom: The Exclusion Of Women From Juries In Eighteenth-Century English Law And Literature, Judy Cornett
Hoodwink'd By Custom: The Exclusion Of Women From Juries In Eighteenth-Century English Law And Literature, Judy Cornett
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.