Torts Commons^™

Some Objections To Strict Liability For Constitutional Torts, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

Qualified immunity protects officials from damages for constitutional violations unless they have violated "clearly established" rights. Local governments enjoy no immunity, but they may not be sued on a vicarious liability theory for constitutional violations committed by their employees. Critics of the current regime would overturn these rules in order to vindicate constitutional rights and deter violations.

This Article argues that across-the-board abolition of these limits on liability would be unwise as the costs would outweigh the benefits. In some contexts, however, exceptions may be justified. Much of the recent controversy surrounding qualified immunity involves suits in which police officers …

Some Objections To Strict Liability For Constitutional Torts, Michael L. Wells

Georgia Law Review

Qualified immunity protects officials from damages for
constitutional violations unless they have violated “clearly
established” rights. Local governments enjoy no immunity, but
they may not be sued on a vicarious liability theory for
constitutional violations committed by their employees. Critics
of the current regime would overturn these rules in order to
vindicate constitutional rights and deter violations. This
Article argues that across-the-board abolition of these limits on
liability would be unwise as the costs would outweigh the
benefits. In some contexts, however, exceptions may be justified.
Much of the recent controversy surrounding qualified
immunity involves suits in which police officers …

Laissez Fair:The Case For Alternative Litigation Funding And Assignment Of Lawsuit Proceeds In Georgia, David T. Adams

Georgia Law Review

This Note discusses the value of alternative litigation funding (ALF) and the legal challenges affecting the ALF industry in Georgia. More specifically, it identifies a way to maximize ALF's benefits for plaintiffs with personal tort and employment discrimination claims. Tort victims who are rendered incapable of working, and employees who have lost jobs because of workplace discrimination or retaliation,face immediate financial burdens-they may be unable to afford food, housing, health care, transportation, and other necessities. This economic pressure often forces plaintiffs to settle quickly for less than the value of the harm inflicted. But ALF companies offer a workable solution …

Why Constitutional Torts Deserve A Book Of Their Own, Michael Wells, Thomas A. Eaton, Sheldon H. Nahmod

Scholarly Works

Over thirty years ago, Marshall Shapo coined the term "constitutional tort" to denote a suit brought against an official, charging a constitutional violation and seeking damages. In the years since Shapo's pathbreaking article, the number of such suits has grown exponentially. The suits have generated a host of new substantive and remedial issues, yet conventional casebooks on constitutional law and federal courts give little attention to the area. That Professor Shapiro had four books to include in his review of "Civil Rights" casebooks in the Seattle University Law Review is some indication of a demand for teaching materials currently unmet …

Constitutional Remedies, Section 1983 And The Common Law, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

Constitutional tort law marries the substantive rights granted by the Constitution to the remedial mechanism of tort law. The sweeping language of 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides that "[e]very person who, under color of any [state law] subjects, or causes to be subjected, any [person] to the deprivation of any [constitutional rights] shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." Constitutional tort suits raise, in a new context, many tort-like remedial questions relating to causation, immunity, and damages--and therein lies a problem. The usual source of answers to …

Substantive Due Process And The Scope Of Constitutional Torts, Michael L. Wells, Thomas A. Eaton

Scholarly Works

The thesis of this Article is that both the Supreme Court and its critics have failed to identify and confront the central issue presented by these due process constitutional tort cases. That issue is neither procedural fairness nor the choice between state and federal courts. It is deciding whether a government-inflicted injury to life, liberty, or property violates the substantive protections of the due process clauses and thereby warrants a constitutionally derived tort remedy. In Part II of this Article we examine the Supreme Court's decisions in this area, focusing primarily on Parratt v. Taylor. We demonstrate that neither Parratt …