Law Commons^™

Harmful Precautions, Ronen Perry

Notre Dame Law Review

According to the conventional definition of reasonableness, commonly known as the Hand formula, a person acts unreasonably (hence negligently) toward another if they fail to take precautions whose cost for the actor is lower than the expected loss for the other that these precautions can prevent.1 While law-and-economics theorists have advocated and courts have often embraced adjustments to both sides of this algebraic formulation,2 the idea that the expected loss must be compared with the cost of precautions for the potential injurer has remained mostly uncontested.3 This Article unveils an overlooked yet fundamental flaw in the orthodox understanding and application …

A Simple Model Of Torts And Moral Wrongs, Steven Schaus

Notre Dame Law Review

According to the “standard model” of torts and moral wrongs—the model implicit in leading moral theories of tort law—tort law imposes genuine duties that are distinct from, and only roughly coincide with, our preexisting moral duties. A “tort,” on this model, is a distinctive kind of wrong, the breach of a tort-generated duty. In this Article, I suggest that moral theories of tort law start with a simpler story—one that dispenses with a distinct domain of tort-generated duties. According to what I call the “simple model” of torts and moral wrongs, tort law aims to recognize and respond directly to …

The Duty Not To Continue Distributing Your Own Libels, Eugene Volokh

Notre Dame Law Review

Say something I wrote about you online (in a newspaper, a blog, or a social media page) turns out to be false and defamatory. Assume I wasn’t culpable when I first posted it, but now I’m on notice of the error.

Am I liable for defamation if I fail to remove or correct the erroneous material? Surprisingly, courts haven’t settled on an answer, and scholars haven’t focused on the question. Libel law is stuck in a time when newspapers left the publisher’s control as soon as they are printed—even though now an article or a post can be seen on …

Libel By Omission Of Exculpatory Legal Decisions, Eugene Volokh

Notre Dame Law Review

Is it libelous to write that someone has been convicted of a crime, but to fail to mention that the conviction has been reversed? Or to write that someone has been charged, without mentioning the acquittal? The answers, it turns out, are often “yes”; this Article lays out the precedents that so conclude.

Recovering The Tort Remedy For Federal Official Wrongdoing, Gregory Sisk

Notre Dame Law Review

As the Supreme Court weakens the Bivens constitutional tort cause of action and federal officers avoid liability for unlawful behavior through qualified immunity, we should recollect the merit of the common-law tort remedy for holding the federal government accountable for official wrongdoing. For more than a century after ratification of the Constitution, federal officers who trespassed on the rights of American citizens could be held personally liable under common-law tort theories, but then routinely were indemnified by the government.

The modern Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) roughly replicates the original regime for official wrongdoing by imposing liability directly on the …

Valuing Black And Female Lives: A Proposal For Incorporating Agency Vsl Into Tort Damages, Catherine M. Sharkey

Notre Dame Law Review

Federal agencies adopt a uniform VSL (value of statistical life)—one that does not vary according to demographic characteristics—in conducting cost-benefit analyses in connection with regulatory policy decisions. In sharp juxtaposition, the use of race- and gender-based statistics on wages and work-life expectancy in calculating tort wrongful death damage awards is an entrenched practice among forensic economists who serve as expert witnesses in tort litigation. The conventional use of race- and gender-specific economic data concerning wages and work-life expectancy in calculating tort damages leads to unjustifiable disparities in awards for blacks and women. Young female and minority tort victims bear the …

The Demise Of § 1983 Malicious Prosecution: Separating Tort Law From The Fourth Amendment, Erin E. Mcmannon

Notre Dame Law Review

The common-law tort of malicious prosecution originally developed to provide a remedy for plaintiffs who were unjustly prosecuted in a criminal proceeding. Today, malicious prosecution actions can be brought to redress wrongful civil actions as well. The “central thrust” of an action for malicious prosecution is a right not to be involved in an unjustified litigation.

This Note suggests that the confusion in this area of law derives from the use of the language of malicious prosecution tort law to describe what really amounts to a Fourth Amendment seizure claim under § 1983. There is no constitutional right to be …

Qualified Immunity At Trial, Alexander A. Reinert

Notre Dame Law Review

Qualified immunity doctrine is complex and important, and for many years it was assumed to have an outsize impact on civil rights cases by imposing significant barriers to success for plaintiffs. Recent empirical work has cast that assumption into doubt, at least as to the impact qualified immunity has at pretrial stages of litigation. This Essay adds to this empirical work by evaluating the impact of qualified immunity at trial, a subject that to date has not been empirically tested. The results reported here suggest that juries are rarely asked to answer questions that bear on the qualified immunity defense. …

Foreword: The Future Of Qualified Immunity, Samuel L. Bray

Notre Dame Law Review

Qualified immunity is not an unqualified success. This defense, which protects officers from liability for damages unless they violate clearly established law, has attracted many critics. Some object to its weak historical foundations, while others find its policy effects to be perverse. Yet the doctrine is shown a special solicitude by the Supreme Court. The Court issues many summary reversals in qualified immunity cases, and the effect of these reversals is all in one direction: they protect, entrench, and extend the defense of qualified immunity. There have been calls for a reconsideration of the doctrine, including in a recent opinion …

A Qualified Defense Of Qualified Immunity, Aaron L. Nielson, Christopher J. Walker

Notre Dame Law Review

In recent years, two new fronts of attack on qualified immunity have emerged. This Essay responds to both and provides a qualified defense of qualified immunity. Part I addresses Will Baude’s argument that qualified immunity finds no support in positive law. Part II turns to Joanna Schwartz’s pioneering empirical work that has been marshaled to question qualified immunity’s effectiveness as a matter of policy.

These two sets of criticisms—a one-two punch that qualified immunity is both unlawful and ineffective—merit serious consideration and further investigation. Neither, however, is dispositive; there are important counterpoints that merit further analysis. But ours is a …

The Intractability Of Qualified Immunity, Alan K. Chen

Notre Dame Law Review

This Essay offers an internal critique of qualified immunity law that explains why these problems remain intractable and why, unfortunately, there is little hope for resolution of the doctrine’s central dilemmas, short of either abandoning immunity or making it absolute. The Essay breaks down its discussion of qualified immunity into three distinct, but related, categories, and argues that the challenges presented within each category are difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. First, it addresses what can best be described as qualified immunity’s foundational jurisprudential tensions. Embedded in the doctrine are several first-level legal theory problems that can be identified and …

The Horror Chamber: Unqualified Impunity In Prison, David M. Shapiro, Charles Hogle

Notre Dame Law Review

The federal courts have been open to prisoners’ constitutional claims for half a century, but to this day, the availability of federal litigation has not stopped prisoners from being tortured, maimed, killed, or otherwise made to suffer chilling abuse. The failure of litigation as a deterrent is due in part to a confluence of legal and situational factors—doctrinal deference, statutory hurdles, and the many difficulties associated with litigating a civil rights case against one’s jailers—that make prison-conditions cases virtually impossible to win. We call this combination of factors “practical immunity.” Practical immunity amounts to a formidable barrier against successful prison-conditions …

Qualified Immunity: Time To Change The Message, Karen M. Blum

Notre Dame Law Review

This Essay will proceed in four parts. Parts I, II, and III will highlight, through some recent illustrative cases, areas where the qualified immunity defense has been especially ineffective and inefficient by: (Part I) hampering the development of constitutional law and impeding the redress of constitutional wrongs; (Part II) draining resources of litigants and courts through interlocutory appeals that are frequently without merit and often jurisdictionally suspect; and (Part III) breeding confusion into the roles of the judge and the jury in our judicial system, effectively enhancing the judge’s role at the expense of the constitutional right to jury trial. …

Formalism, Ferguson, And The Future Of Qualified Immunity, Fred O. Smith Jr.

Notre Dame Law Review

This Essay explores whether formalism and accountability are compatible lodestars as we steer toward a new future for qualified immunity. Ultimately, I argue that two existing proposals would bring the doctrine closer to its text and history, mitigate against fragmentation in the law of constitutional torts, and narrow the rights-remedies gap when government officials violate the Constitution. One proposal, by John Jeffries, would create a fault-based system, where government officials and entities alike would be liable for constitutional violations that are both unreasonable and unconstitutional. Another proposal would render governmental employers’ liable for the acts of their agents.

Qualified Immunity And Fault, John F. Preis

Notre Dame Law Review

This Essay describes, critiques, and attempts to reform the role of fault in the defense of qualified immunity. It first argues, in Part I, that the defense does not properly assess fault because it immunizes persons who are at fault and holds liable persons who are not. The chief cause of this problem is that the defense is focused on an exceedingly narrow source of law: appellate judicial opinions. Appellate opinions are, not surprisingly, rarely read by government officers and, even when their substance is communicated to officers, they only comprise one of many factors that affect the blameworthiness of …

The Branch Best Qualified To Abolish Immunity, Scott Michelman

Notre Dame Law Review

Qualified immunity—the legal doctrine that shields government officials from suit for constitutional violations unless the right they violate “is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right”—has come under increasing judicial and scholarly criticism from diverse ideological viewpoints. This Essay considers the question of which branch of government should fix it. I take as a starting point the many critiques of qualified immunity and then turn to the question of whether courts should wait for Congress to reform this problematic doctrine. Do considerations of stare decisis or institutional competence counsel in …

The Illusive "Reasonable Person": Can Neuroscience Help The Mentally Disabled?, Ian J. Cosgrove

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note argues that the distinction between what constitutes a physical versus a mental disability can no longer rationally be sustained. Specifically, its purpose is to show that providing an exception to the “reasonable person” standard in negligence actions for the physically disabled while withholding it for those with mental infirmities is increasingly indefensible. Part I briefly tracks the origins of the current rule in tort law that holds the mentally and physically disabled to separate standards. This discussion is purposely left short because of the breadth of scholarship tracing the standard. Part II seeks to justify, through neuroscientific brain …

Determining Trademark Standing In The Wake Of Lexmark, John L. Brennan

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note examines relevant statutory language, case law, and scholarly criticism, and ultimately contends that the standard articulated in Lexmark should apply to both types of claims. Part I provides background regarding the history of the Lanham Act, looking particularly at the ways in which courts have treated trademarks and false advertising differently. Part II discusses the Lexmark decision and the recent district court cases that have addressed its holding. Part III examines the text of both the Lanham Act and the Supreme Court’s opinion in Lexmark in order to determine the decision’s scope, and concludes that Lexmark’s holding …

Ex-Post Right, Ex-Ante Wrong, Ariel Porat

Notre Dame Law Review

Should a doctor be held liable under negligence law for harmful treatment she administered to a patient, if the treatment should have been considered negligent at the time it was administered, but is now considered reasonable at the time of trial? Should a manufacturer be held liable for harm caused to a consumer from a product that is considered reasonable, and therefore nondefective, at the time of trial, but that should have been considered unreasonable, and therefore defective, at the time of its distribution? More generally put: Should the law impose liability for ex-post right but ex-ante wrong behaviors? The …