Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
"A Distinction Without A Difference"?: Bartlett Going Forward, Steven A. Schwartz
"A Distinction Without A Difference"?: Bartlett Going Forward, Steven A. Schwartz
Fordham Law Review
This Note addresses the question of whether federal law preempts state design defect claims against generic drug manufacturers regardless of which test state law uses to determine whether a drug is defective. This issue, arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of preemption jurisprudence and fundamental tort law as stated in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, is significant because it plays a large role in determining to what extent generic drug manufacturers are immune to civil liability arising out of injuries caused by their generic drugs. In an age of rising medical costs and jury awards, both plaintiff …
No Harm, No Foul? "Attempted" Invasion Of Privacy And The Tort Of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Eli A. Meltz
No Harm, No Foul? "Attempted" Invasion Of Privacy And The Tort Of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Eli A. Meltz
Fordham Law Review
The tort of intrusion upon seclusion protects individuals from unwanted invasions into their personal space and personal affairs. While courts differ as to the precise definition and scope of this tort, at the most basic level, a claim for intrusion upon seclusion alleges that the defendant has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff’s legitimate interest in maintaining some degree of privacy in his or her personal affairs. This Note analyzes an interesting issue that has emerged concerning the application of this tort: Should a defendant be held liable when he or she has attempted to observe the plaintiff in a private …
The Future Of Emotional Harm, Betsy J. Grey
The Future Of Emotional Harm, Betsy J. Grey
Fordham Law Review
Why should tort law treat claims for emotional harm as a second-class citizen? Judicial skepticism about these claims is long entrenched, justified by an amalgam of perceived problems ranging from proof difficulties for causation and the need to constrain fraudulent claims, to the ubiquity of the injury, and a concern about open-ended liability. To address this jumble of justifications, the law has developed a series of duty limitations to curb the claims and preclude them from reaching the jury for individualized analysis. The limited duty approach to emotional harm is maintained by the latest iteration of the Restatement (Third) of …