Torts Commons^™

Standard Of Care For Students With Disabilities: The Intersection Of Liability Under The Idea And Tort Theories, Ralph D. Mawdsley

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This article explores issues of legal liability for school personnel where students with disabilities are injured in school settings or cause injuries to employees and other students in schools. While questions related to legal liability are varied, they tend to fall within two broad areas: standard of care relating to injuries to or by students; and, standard of care for employees working with students with or training others to work with students with disabilities. In both areas, the legal issue revolves around the concept of heightened standard of care, especially where framed by the language of students' IEPs (Individualized Education …

The Frequency, Predictability, And Proportionality Of Jury Awards Of Punitive Damages In State Courts In 2005: A New Audit, Neil Vidmar, Mirya Holman

Faculty Scholarship

The state of punitive damages in the United States has been a controversial topic for more than three decades, resulting in litigation reaching the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts. Various business advocacy groups have sought to drastically curb or eliminate punitive damages while plaintiffs’ lawyers and consumer groups vigorously defend the use of punitive damages. State legislatures have responded with many substantive and procedural reforms over the years. Yet, in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, the United States Supreme Court, while approvingly citing empirical evidence indicating that there are “not mass-produced runaway awards” and that “by most accounts …

Forgotten Namesake: The Illinois Good Samaritan Act's Inexcusable Failure To Provide Immunity To Non-Medical Rescuers, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1097 (2010), David Weldon

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Communications Decency Act And New York Times V. Sullivan: Providing Public Figure Defamation A Home On The Internet, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 491 (2010), Chris Williams

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Speech At What Cost?: Snyder V. Phelps And Speech-Based Tort Liability, Jeffrey Shulman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

It is always a hard case when fundamental interests collide, but the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. granted, 130 S. Ct. 1737 (2010), tilts doctrine too far in the direction of free speech, upsetting the Supreme Court’s careful weighing of interests that takes into account both the need for robust political debate and the need to protect private individuals from personal abuse. Where speech is directed at a private individual, especially one unwilling to hear but unable to escape the speaker’s message, the elements of the emotional distress claim more than …

Medical Malpractice Liability Crisis Or Patient Compensation Crisis?, Kathryn Zeiler

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Article is organized as follows. Part II summarizes the common rhetoric in tort reform debates that places the blame for rising premiums on the liability system and touts tort reform as the cure-all for ailing insurance markets. It then summarizes empirical results, produced using Texas closed claims data and other data, which suggest not only that Texas tort reform advocates wrongly placed blame on the liability system, but also that noneconomic damages caps passed in 2003 have caused more harm than good. Part III describes results that suggest that the widely used tactic of pointing to jumbo jury verdicts …

Allowing Patients To Waive The Right To Sue For Medical Malpractice: A Response To Thaler And Sunstein, Tom Baker, Timothy D. Lytton

All Faculty Scholarship

This essay critically evaluates Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s proposal to allow patients to prospectively waive their rights to bring a malpractice claim, presented in their recent, much acclaimed book, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. We show that the behavioral insights that undergird Nudge do not support the waiver proposal. In addition, we demonstrate that Thaler and Sunstein have not provided a persuasive cost-benefit justification for the proposal. Finally, we argue that their liberty-based defense of waivers rests on misleading analogies and polemical rhetoric that ignore the liberty and other interests served by patients’ tort law rights. …

Introduction To Symposium: Reasoning From Literature, Jessica Silbey

Faculty Scholarship

The “literary turn” in legal studies manifests in many ways in our legal discipline and practice. Be it with the birth of the study of law and literature in the 1980s, the growing attention to narrative theory and storytelling in the law in the 1990s, or the “cultural turn” in legal studies in the 21st century (as some scholars have called the cultural analysis of law), reasoning from literature seems commonplace. And yet it is still marginalized in legal studies as interdisciplinary, not “really law,” and lacking the core persuasive power that legal argumentation and doctrinal analysis do. This Symposium …

Doing Wrong Without Creating Harm, Lawrence M. Solan, Joseph Sanders, Matthew B. Kugler, John M. Darley

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

When Is Religious Speech Outrageous?: Snyder V. Phelps And The Limits Of Religious Advocacy, Jeffrey Shulman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Constitution affords great protection to religiously motivated speech. Religious liberty would mean little if it did not mean the right to profess and practice as well as to believe. But are there limits beyond which religious speech loses its constitutional shield? Would it violate the First Amendment to subject a religious entity to tort liability if its religious profession causes emotional distress? When is religious speech outrageous?

These are vexing questions, to say the least; but the United States Supreme Court will take them up next term—and it will do so in a factual context that has generated as …

Damned For Their Judgment: The Tort Liability Of Standard Development Organizations, Robert H. Heidt

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

A Post-Impact Fear Of Pre-Impact Fright, Meg Ellen Phillips

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Impact Of Wyeth V. Levine On Fda Regulation Of Prescription Drugs, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

On March 4, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided Wyeth v. Levine. In that case, the Court concluded that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim against the makers of the drug Phenergan was not impliedly preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). In doing so, the Court rejected the argument of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that tort claims of this nature stand as an obstacle to federal regulatory objectives. This article evaluates the Court's opinion in Wyeth and examines that decision's impact on subsequent litigation in the area of prescription drug labeling. In …

Loss Of Parental Consortium: Why Kentucky Should Re-Recognize The Claim Outside The Wrongful Death Context, Collin D. Schueler

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The term "consortium" has been defined as "[t]he benefits that one person . . . is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, [and] financial support." Under Kentucky law, "[e]ither a wife or husband may recover damages against a third person for loss of consortium, resulting from a negligent or wrongful act of such third person.” Furthermore, "[in] a wrongful death action in which the decedent was a minor child, the surviving parent, or parents, may recover for loss of affection and companionship that would have been derived from such child during its minority…” In Giuliani v. …

Class Dismissed: Contemporary Judicial Hostility To Small-Claims Consumer Class Actions, Myriam E. Gilles

Articles

I start from the view that small-value consumer claims are a primary reason that class actions exist, and that without class actions many - if not most - of the wrongs perpetrated upon small-claims consumers would not be capable of redress. It would then seem to follow that the class action device should be readily available in small-claims consumer cases. And yet, over the past decade, federal district courts have repeatedly declined to certify class actions on grounds that are specific to small-claims consumer cases. Foremost among those grounds is the notion that the federal class action rule carries within …

The Multiple Common Law Roots Of Charitable Immunity: An Essay In Honor Of Richard Epstein's Contributions To Tort Law, Jill R. Horwitz

Articles

Professor Epstein has long promoted replacing tort-based malpractice law with a new regime based on contracts. In Mortal Peril, he grounded his normative arguments in favor of such a shift in the positive, doctrinal history of charitable immunity law. In this essay, in three parts, I critique Professor Epstein’s suggestion that a faulty set of interpretations in charitable immunity law led to our current reliance on tort for malpractice claims. First, I offer an alternative interpretation to Professor Epstein’s claim that one group of 19th and early 20th century cases demonstrates a misguided effort to protect donor wishes. Rather, I …

Coordinating Sanctions In Torts, Kyle D. Logue

Articles

This Article begins with the standard Law and Economics account of tort law as a regulatory tool or system of deterrence, that is, as a means of giving regulated parties the optimal ex ante incentives to minimize the costs of accidents. Building on this fairly standard (albeit not universally accepted) picture of tort law, the Article asks the question how tort law should adjust, if at all, to coordinate with already existing non-tort systems of regulation. Thus, if a particular activity is already subject to extensive agency-based regulation (whether in the form of command-and-control requirements or in the form of …

Of Coase, Calabresi, And Optimal Tax Liability, Kyle D. Logue, Joel Slemrod

Articles

The Article proceeds as follows. Part II offers a primer on the Coase Theorem, beginning with the classic case of neighbor externalizing on neighbor (farmer and rancher), and it explains the basic invariance propositions. Part III shifts the focus to Coasean situations involving buyers and sellers in a market or contractual relationship, buyers and sellers whose market interactions cause harm to third parties. Using supply-and-demand diagrams, we illustrate (in a new way) some of the most basic findings of the economic analysis of law, including both the Coasean invariance and efficiency propositions and the Calabresian least-cost avoider idea. Also in …

Open Content Licensing Of Public Sector Information And The Risk Of Tortious Liability For Australian Governments, Cheryl Foong

Cheryl Foong

There has been an increasing interest by governments worldwide in the potential benefits of open access to public sector information (PSI). However, an important question remains: can a government incur tortious liability for incorrect information released online under an open content licence? This paper argues that the release of PSI online for free under an open content licence, specifically a Creative Commons licence, is within the bounds of an acceptable level of risk to government, especially where users are informed of the limitations of the data and appropriate information management policies and principles are in place to ensure accountability for …

Tort Law And Probabilistic Litigation: How To Apply Multipliers To Address The Problem Of Negative Value Suits, Ben Depoorter

Ben Depoorter

This Article advances a proposal that brings to life valuable lawsuits that litigation costs currently discourage. Our proposal converts claims with negative expected values into positive expected value claims by implementing a novel system involving flexible conditional multipliers. Our proposal has two components. First, under the proposed system a plaintiff is allowed to select a damage multiplier that determines the amount of damages the plaintiff will receive if the litigation is successful. Second, courts select cases for litigation randomly with a probability inverse to the multiplier the plaintiff selected.