Law Commons^™

Texas Bucks The Trend - No Cause Of Action For Lost Chance Of Survival In The Medical Malpractice Context: Kramer V. Lewisville Memorial Hospital, Wayne Barnes

Faculty Scholarship

Jennie Kramer visited her gynecologist in August 1985 complaining of unusual discharges and intermittent bleeding. At that time, her doctor informed her that she tested negative for cancer. Her irregular bleeding continued, but on two subsequent visits to another doctor in November and December, Ms. Kramer was again informed that she did not have cancer. During February of 1986, after continued bleeding, Ms. Kramer detected a hard spot in her vagina. She returned to the second doctor a third time, at which time she was diagnosed with cancer. In spite of subsequent exploratory surgery and chemotherapy, Ms. Kramer died on …

A Model Of Products Liability Reform, Anita Bernstein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

From A Reporter's Perspective: A Proposed Agenda, Aaron Twerski

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Will A New Restatement Help Settle Troubled Waters: Reflections, Aaron Twerski, J. A. Henderson

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Reflections On The Historical Context Of Section 402a, Oscar S. Gray

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Anatomy Of Emotional Distress Claims In Minnesota, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the right to recover damages for emotional distress in Minnesota, with emphasis on claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The recovery of damages for emotional distress is subject to varying and perhaps seemingly inconsistent standards. After a brief history of emotional distress law, the Article will discuss claims for emotional distress based on negligence, intentional torts, and statutory violations. These areas are examined in detail to determine the standards for the recovery of emotional harm in Minnesota and to evaluate whether the standards are applied consistently. The Article also examines the right to recover …

Using Comparative Fault To Replace The All-Or-Nothing Lottery Imposed In Intentional Torts Suits In Which Both Plaintiff And Defendant Are At Fault , Gail D. Hollister

Faculty Scholarship

All or nothing. For years this idea of absolutes has been a hallmark of tort law despite the inequities it has caused. Plaintiffs must either win a total victory or suffer total defeat. In recent years courts and legislatures have begun to recognize the injustice of the all-or-nothing approach and to replace it with rules that permit partial recoveries that are more equitably tailored to the particular facts of each case. The most dramatic example of this more equitable approach is the nearly universal rejection of contributory negligence in favor of comparative fault in negligence cases. Almost all jurisdictions, however, …

Understanding The Malpractice Wars, Thomas B. Metzloff

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Perspectives On A Torts Course, Anita Bernstein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Private Insurance, Social Insurance, And Tort Reform: Toward A New Vision Of Compensation For Illness And Injury, Kenneth S. Abraham, Lance Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

The United States does not have a system for compensating the victims of illness and injury; it has a set of different institutions that provide compensation. We rely on both tort law and giant programs of public and private insurance to compensate the victims of illness and injury. These institutions perform related functions, but the relationships among them are far from coherent. Indeed, the institutions sometimes work at cross-purposes, compensating some victims excessively and others not at all.

The absence of a coherent system of compensation is reflected even in suggested reforms of existing institutions. Proposals to reform tort law …