Law Commons^™

Birth Of Preconception Torts In Missouri, The, Raymond E. Williams

Missouri Law Review

The term"'preconception tort' refers to negligent conduct which occurred prior to the plaintiff’s conception.” This Note examines the legal development of preconception tort doctrine with particular focus on the foreseeability, statute of limitations, and policy issues flowing from the duty a defendant owes to an unborn plaintiff.

Tort Liability To Those Injured By Negligent Accreditation Decisions, Peter H. Schuck

Law and Contemporary Problems

The risk of tort liability for negligent accreditators is examined. Only a single court has held a private accrediting body liable to a consumer for negligence in connection with its evaluation of a social service provider.

Guns For Hire, Commercial Speech And Tort Liability: Making A Case For Preserving First Amendment Free Speech Rights, Stephen T. Raptis

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Collapsing The Legal Impediments To Indemnification, Clark C. Johnson

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Sports Officials Should Only Be Liable For Acts Of Gross Negligence: Is That The Right Call?, Kenneth W. Biedzynski Esq.

University of Miami Entertainment & Sports Law Review

No abstract provided.

Missouri Firefighter's Rule, The, Christopher M. Hohn

Missouri Law Review

The firefighter's rule bars injured firefighters and police officers from recovering against individuals whose ordinary negligence created the situation that required the presence of the officer or firefighter. In Missouri, the firefighter's rule originated as a landowner liability rule and as an exception to the rescue doctrine More recently, however, the rule has been influenced by the doctrine of assumption of risk and by public policy concerns. The result has been a hodgepodge of old and new rationales that form the basis for an inconsistent rule that relies on superfluous analysis. In Gray v. Russell, the Missouri Supreme Court reasserted …

Faiblesse Oblige, Mauro Bussani

Mauro Bussani

A general principle of Western negligence law is that, whatever a person’s characteristics, (dis)abilities, strengths and weaknesses, his/her behavior should be judged against the standard of care expected from the ‘reasonable person’. The latter is a person allegedly endowed with average knowledge, conventional musculature, ordinary reactions, commonplace skills, and normal intelligence and memory – a ‘person without quality’. The aim of this paper is to offer comparative evidence to the fact that the ‘person without quality’ rule (ought not be, and) actually is not imposed upon below-average defendants – that is, persons who are weaker than the ‘reasonable person’, like …

A New Predicament For Physicians: The Concept Of Medical Futility, The Physician's Obligation To Render Inappropriate Treatment, And The Interplay Of The Medical Standard Of Care, Eric M. Levine

Journal of Law and Health

Part II of this article discusses the concept of futility and reviews various proposed approaches to defining "futility". This article then shows how personal value judgments play an integral part in determining futility under virtually all of these approaches. Part II concludes that a decision that treatment is futile should not be based on the individual values of only the patient or physician under the shared decisionmaking model of the physician-patient relationship. Part III tackles the issue whether a physician must offer or continue treatment deemed "medically and ethically inappropriate." Part III first reviews common law doctrines governing the physician-patient …

Apportioning Liability To Nonparties In Kentucky Tort Actions: A Natural Extension Of Comparative Fault Or A Phantom Scapegoat For Negligent Defendants?, Julie O'Daniel Mcclellan

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Negligence, Contract, And Architects' Liability For Economic Loss, Matthew S. Steffey

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Discontinuities, Causation, And Grady's Uncertainty Theorem, Stephen G. Marks

Faculty Scholarship

In a series of articles, Mark Grady considers the problem of discontinuity under a tort negligence regime. The discontinuity can be described as follows. A potential injurer who adopts the optimal level of precaution is completely shielded from liability under the negligence system even though accidents occur. A very small decrease in the level of precaution below the optimal level suddenly exposes the potential injurer to liability for those accidents. This discontinuity makes the expected cost of under-investment in precaution greater than the expected cost of overinvestment. In a world where there is uncertainty about the optimal level of precaution …

Obstacles To The Creation Of A Permanent War Crimes Tribunal, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

Individual liability for war crimes is difficult to enforce and is unlikely to be accepted uniformly by states.

Individual criminal responsibility is the cornerstone of any international war crimes tribunal. Nuremberg Principle I provides that “[a]ny person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.” Acts by heads of state or other government officials, even if committed in an official capacity, may not constitute an immunity defense to or mitigate criminality. These officials, therefore, could also be held responsible for offenses committed pursuant to their orders. Additionally, liability for criminal …

Comments To The Reporters And Selected Members Of The Consultative Group, Restatement Of Torts (Third): Products Liability, Howard C. Klemme

Publications

No abstract provided.

Chaos And The Law Of Borrowed Servant: An Argument For Consistency, J. Dennis Hynes

Publications

No abstract provided.

Federal Rule Of Evidence 407: Should It Apply To Products Liability?, Patricia A. Brass

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Oregon V. Smith And The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: An Educational Perspective, Edward C. Lyons

Edward C. Lyons

No abstract provided.