Torts Commons^™

Intentional Infliction Of Mental Distress In Montana, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

In several recent opinions, the Montana Supreme Court indicated its willingness to recognize intentional infliction of mental distress as an independent tort, even as the court stated that no plaintiff had presented a factual situation which would satisfy the elements of the cause of action. In the 1995 case of Sacco v. High Country Independent Press, Inc., the Montana Supreme Court held that an "independent cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress will arise under circumstances where serious or severe emotional distress to the plaintiff was the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's intentional act or omission. " …

The Parental Tort Immunity Doctrine: Is It A Defensible Defense?, Sandra L. Haley

University of Richmond Law Review

If the overriding purpose of tort law is to compensate those injured by the wrongdoing of another, then intrafamily tort immunities have historically defeated that purpose. Their effect is to leave an uncompensated injured party with no remedy simply by virtue of the tortfeasor's familial relationship to the injured person. This survey focuses on the doctrine of parental tort immunity and concludes that, although numerous exceptions exist, the rationales advanced for the doctrine's continued existence are of questionable relevance today.

State Of The Art In Montana Products Liability Law, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The United States District Court for the District of Montana recently certified an important question of products liability law to the Montana Supreme Court. United States Senior District Judge Paul J. Hatfield certified the following question:

In a strict products liability case for injuries caused by an inherently unsafe product, is the manufacturer conclusively presumed to know the dangers inherent in his product, or is stateof- the-art evidence admissible to establish whether the manufacturer knew or through the exercise of reasonable human foresight should have known of the danger?

Because the issue of the admissibility of state-of-the-art evidence in a …