Torts Commons^™

The Choice Between Implied Warranty And Tort Liability For Recovery Of Pure Economic Loss In "Contract-Torts": A Comparison Of Judicial And Private Ordering In The Real Property Market, Norman Siebrasse

Dalhousie Law Journal

The Supreme Court's decision in Winnipeg Condo. Corp. No. 36 v. Bird Construction expanded recovery for pure economic loss in tort by allowing a subsequent purchaser to recover the cost of repairing a dangerous defect arising out of negligence in the construction of a building. This article outlines the theoretical justifications for extended tort liability when the parties are linked by a contractual chain but are not in privity, and concludes that it is not possible to determine whether extended liability is desirable without considering the details of the market in question. A comparison between tort liability and the protection …

Affirmative Duties, Systemic Harms, And The Due Process Clause, Barbara E. Armacost

Michigan Law Review

Part I of the article lays out the major academic criticisms of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. Part II describes the contours of liability for failure to protect in tort. Part III offers a positive explanation for the strong presumption against governmental liability in failure-to-protect cases: permitting broad liability for failure to protect would involve the courts in second-guessing political decisions about the use of limited community resources. This explanation has two parts. First, as a matter of institutional competence, budgetary decisions about the appropriate level and distribution of public services are better suited to political rather …

Liability For Unreasonably And Unavoidably Unsafe Products: Does Negligence Doctrine Have A Role To Play, Joseph A. Page

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

To what extent, if any, should courts hold defendants liable for harm caused by hazards associated with the unduly and unavoidably dangerous aspects of goods they produce and market?

Where manufacturers might have eliminated unreasonable risks arising from the manufacture or design of a product, or from the information (or lack thereof) conveyed by a product's labeling, the tort system traditionally has provided injured victims with an opportunity to obtain compensation for injuries attributable to these risks. Moreover, even where risks from manufacturing or construction defects could not have been eliminated with the exercise of reasonable care, the courts have …