Law Commons^™

Product Liability, Franklin P. Brannen Jr., Jacob E. Daly

Mercer Law Review

This Article surveys developments in Georgia product liability law during the period of June 1, 2008 through May 31, 2009. It covers noteworthy cases decided during the survey period by the Georgia appellate courts, the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and United States district courts located in Georgia. In addition, this Article discusses bills considered by the Georgia General Assembly during its 2009 session that are particularly relevant to product liability cases.

Torts, Deron R. Hicks, Travis C. Hargrove

Mercer Law Review

This Article surveys recent developments in Georgia tort law between June 1, 2008 and May 31, 2009.

Comfortably Numb: Medicalizing (And Mitigating) Pain-And-Suffering Damages, Lars Noah

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Among the compensatory damages that a plaintiff may recover in tort litigation, awards for pain and suffering have attracted the most attention. Attorneys, judges, legislators, and scholars from various disciplines long have struggled to measure and make sense of this aspect of compensation for tortiously caused injuries. With the steady expansion of what falls within the rubric of nonpecuniary damages and in the types of claims eligible for such awards, to say nothing of the growth in the absolute and relative size of this portion of compensatory awards, pain-and-suffering damages have become increasingly controversial.

Although it canvasses the competing arguments …

Negligence And Insufficient Activity: The Missing Paradigm In Torts, David Gilo, Ehud Guttel

Michigan Law Review

Conventional wisdom in tort law maintains that the prevention of undesirable risks mandates restriction of harmful conduct. Against this widely held conviction, this Article shows that undesirable risks often stem from insufficient, rather than excessive, activity. Because negligence requires investments in only cost-justified care, parties might deliberately limit their activity so that the size of the ensuing risk would be lower than the cost of welfare-enhancing precautions. Parties' incentives to strategically restrict their activity levels have striking implications for the inducement of efficient harm prevention. The overlooked paradigm of insufficient activity calls for the imposition of a new form of …

Election Of Remedies In The Twenty-First Century: Centra Health, Inc. V. Mullins, L. Steven Emmert

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Practice And Procedure, Hon. Jane Marum Roush

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Private Production Of Public Goods: Liability For Unrequested Benefits, Ariel Porat

Michigan Law Review

This Article explores why the law treats negative externalities (harms) and positive externalities (benefits) differently. Ideally, from an economic perspective, both negative and positive externalities should be internalized by those who produce them, for with full internalization, injurers and benefactors alike would behave efficiently. In actuality, however, whereas the law requires that injurers bear the harms they create (or wrongfully create), benefactors are seldom entitled to recover for benefits they voluntarily confer on recipients without the latter's consent ( "unrequested benefits"). One aim of this Article is to explore the puzzle of the law's differing treatment of negative and positive …

A Sea Of Confusion: The Shipowner's Limitation Of Liability Act As An Independent Basis For Admiralty Jurisdiction, Amie L. Medley

Michigan Law Review

The Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 allowed the owner of a vessel to limit his liability in the case of an accident to the value of the vessel and its cargo if he could show he had no knowledge of or participation in the negligent act that resulted in the loss. In 1911, the Supreme Court decided Richardson v. Harmon, a case which was interpreted for several decades to hold that the Limitation Act formed an independent basis for admiralty jurisdiction. In a 1990 case, the Supreme Court stated in a footnote that it would not reach …

The Definition Of "Accident" In Canadian Coverage Cases And The Unspoken "Useful Purpose" Test, Eric J. Adams

Dalhousie Law Journal

Thispaper argues that courts tacitly weigh risks againstrewards when constructing the meaning of the term "accident." It suggests the phrase "courting the risk" takes on two distinct meanings. Firstly, at some point, the risks associated with an activity are said to be so substantial as to suggest an insured expected and, thus, courted any resulting losses.. Secondly, a party is deemed to court the risk of. loss if acting solely for the experience of risk, in and of itself,and not for any other redeeming benefit. The author outlines the evolution of the term "accident" in the case law and contrasts …

Normativity, Fairness, And The Problem Of Factual Uncertainty, Andrew Botterell, Christopher Essert

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article concerns the problem of factual uncertainty in negligence law. We argue that negligence law's insistence that fair terms of interaction be maintained between individuals--a requirement that typically manifests itself in the need for the plaintiff to prove factual or "but-for" causation--sometimes allows for the imposition of liability in the absence of such proof. In particular, we argue that the but-for requirement can be abandoned in certain situations where multiple defendants have imposed the same unreasonable risk on a plaintiff, where the plaintiff suffers the very sort of harm that rendered the risk unreasonable, and where the plaintiff cannot …

Not Your Mother's Remedy: A Civil Action Response To The Westboro Baptist Church's Military Funeral Demonstrations, Chelsea Brown

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Health Law-Informed Consent-Trust Me, I Do This All The Time: Comparative Provider Statistics And Informed Consent In Arkansas, Barrett S. Moore

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Unintended Consequence Of Tort Reform In Michigan: An Argument For Reinstating Retailer Product Liability, Ashley L. Thompson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Tort reform became an important issue during the 1994 Congressional Campaign as part of the Republican Party's "Contract with America. "Since then, many federal and state laws have attempted to reduce both liability and recovery in tort actions. In 1996, Michigan passed the Tort Reform Act, encompassing many drastic changes to state tort law. One provision of the Act, § 294 7, scaled back liability against non-manufacturing retailers in product liability actions. The Michigan Supreme Court interpreted the exceptions of the law narrowly and the prohibition broadly, essentially barring recovery from retailers. Since 1996, this provision has prevented victims injured …

Stepping Beyond The Smith Plaintiffs‘ Reliance On Corso: An Alternative Approach To Recovering Emotional-Distress Damages In Wrongful-Birth Cases In New Hampshire, Parker B. Potter Jr.

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “More than twenty years ago, in Smith v. Cote, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held “that New Hampshire recognizes a cause of action for wrongful birth.” After so holding, the court then discussed the damages available to a prevailing wrongful-birth plaintiff. Among other things, the court held that when parental emotional distress associated with raising a disabled child, born after the mother had received negligent pre-natal assurance of the baby‘s normal health, “results in tangible pecuniary losses, such as medical expenses or counseling fees, such losses are recoverable.” The court further held that a wrongful-birth plaintiff may not recover …

Restraining False Light: Constitutional And Common Law Limits On A "Troublesome Tort", James B. Lake

Federal Communications Law Journal

The defamation tort is the common law's established remedy for false speech that causes reputational and emotional injury. That tort is subject to intricate constitutional, legislative, and common law rules that have evolved over decades. The false light invasion of privacy tort also provides a potential cause of action in response to injurious falsehood. False light, however, has been subject to much less judicial and legislative scrutiny than defamation. As a result, courts often are uncertain about the proper limits on false light and, in some cases, have countenanced false light claims that would have failed if filed as defamation …

Res Ipsa Loquitur In The Restatement (Third) Of Torts: Liability Based Upon Naked Statistics Rather Than Real Evidence, Daniel J. Pylman

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Using the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, courts have accounted for the fact that there may be instances where a plaintiff is unable to present any evidence of a specific negligent act or omission and yet where the injury to the plaintiff and the surrounding circumstances suggest that the defendant did in fact negligently cause the injury. Despite the fact that the doctrine of res ipsa has been well-accepted by American courts, the courts have struggled to appropriately formulate the doctrine so as to achieve its important purpose of allowing recovery in appropriate situations while not formulating it so …

Stipulated Damages, Super-Strict Liability, And Mitigation In Contract Law, Saul Levmore

Michigan Law Review

The remedy of expectancy damages in contract law is conventionally described as strict liability for breach. Parties sometimes stipulate damages in advance, and may agree that the damages they stipulate shall be the exclusive remedy for breach. They may do so because of their conviction that they can, even in advance, assess damages with greater accuracy than courts, and they may be wary of litigation costs associated with the postbreach determination of expectancy damages. This Article advances two claims. First, that the familiar expectation remedy is correctly understood to involve elements of fault. There is litigation over the question of …

In (Partial) Defense Of Strict Liability In Contract, Robert E. Scott

Michigan Law Review

Many scholars believe that notions of fault should and do pervade contract doctrine. Notwithstanding the normative and positive arguments in favor of a fault-based analysis of particular contract doctrines, I argue that contract liability is strict liability at its core. This core regime is based on two key prongs: (1) the promisor is liable to the promisee for breach, and that liability is unaffected by the promisor's exercise of due care or failure to take efficient precautions; and (2) the promisor's liability is unaffected by the fact that the promisee, prior to the breach, has failed to take cost-effective precautions …

Fault In Contract Law, Eric A. Posner

Michigan Law Review

A promisor is strictly liable for breaching a contract, according to the standard account. However, a negligence-based system of contract law can be given an economic interpretation, and this Article shows that such a system is in some respects more attractive than the strict-liability system. This may explain why, as a brief discussion of cases shows, negligence ideas continue to play a role in contract decisions.

Why Breach Of Contract May Not Be Immoral Given The Incompleteness Of Contracts, Steven Shavell

Michigan Law Review

There is a widely held view that breach of contract is immoral. I suggest here that breach may often be seen as moral, once one appreciates that contracts are incompletely detailed agreements and that breach may be committed in problematic contingencies that were not explicitly addressed by the governing contracts. In other words, it is a mistake generally to treat a breach as a violation of a promise that was intended to cover the particular contingency that eventuated.

The Fault Principle As The Chameleon Of Contract Law: A Market Function Approach, Stefan Grundmann

Michigan Law Review

This Article begins with a comparative law survey showing that all legal systems do not opt exclusively for fault liability or strict liability in contract law, but often adopt a more nuanced approach. This approach includes intermediate solutions such as reversing the burden of proof, using a market ("objective") standard of care, distinguishing between different types of contracts, and providing a "second chance" to breaching parties. Taking this starting point seriously and arguing that it is highly unlikely that all legal systems err, this Article argues that the core question is how and when each liability regime should prevail or …

Let Us Never Blame A Contract Breaker, Richard A. Posner

Michigan Law Review

Holmes famously proposed a "no fault" theory of contract law: a contract is an option to perform or pay, and a "breach" is therefore not a wrongful act, but merely triggers the duty to pay liquidated or other damages. I elaborate the Holmesian theory, arguing that fault terminology in contract law, such as "good faith," should be given pragmatic economic interpretations, rather than be conceived of in moral terms. I further argue that contract doctrines should normally be alterable only on the basis of empirical investigations.

The Fault That Lies Within Our Contract Law, George M. Cohen

Michigan Law Review

Scholars and courts typically describe and defend American contract law as a system of strict liability, or liability without fault. Strict liability generally means that the reason for nonperformance does not matter in determining whether a contracting party breached. Strict liability also permeates the doctrines of contract damages, under which the reason for the breach does not matter in determining the measure of damages, and the doctrines of contract formation, under which the reason for failing to contract does not matter In my Article, I take issue with the strict liability paradigm, as I have in my prior work on …

An Information Theory Of Willful Breach, Oren Bar-Gill, Omri Ben-Shahar

Michigan Law Review

Should willful breach be sanctioned more severely than inadvertent breach? Strikingly, there is sharp disagreement on this matter within American legal doctrine, in legal theory, and in comparative law. Within law-and-economics, the standard answer is "no "-breach should be subject to strict liability. Fault should not raise the magnitude of liability in the same way that no fault does not immune the breaching party from liability. In this paper, we develop an alternative law-and-economics account, which justifies supercompensatory damages for willful breach. Willful breach, we argue, reveals information about the "true nature" of the breaching party-that he is more likely …

Could Breach Of Contract Be Immoral?, Seana Shiffrin

Michigan Law Review

Some scholars defend the contract law's ban on punitive damage awards on the grounds that breach of contract, in itself, is not morally wrong. In this Article, I offer two responses. First, I refute one prevalent argument of Steven Shavell's in support of this view. Shavell argues that contractual breach is not immoral in those cases in which the legal regime would offer expectation damages because the contracting parties would not have agreed to require performance had they explicitly deliberated about the circumstances occasioning the breach. I criticize his argument for failing to justify this hypothetical-contract approach and, in any …

Foreword: Fault In American Contract Law, Omri Ben-Shahar, Ariel Porat

Michigan Law Review

The basic rule of liability in tort law is fault. The basic rule of liability in contract law is no fault. This is perhaps one of the most striking divides within private law, the most important difference between the law of voluntary and nonvoluntary obligations. It is this fault line (speaking equivocally) that the present Symposium explores. Is it a real divide-two opposite branches of liability within private law-or is it merely a rhetorical myth? How can it be justified? As law-and-economics scholars, this fault/no-fault divide between contract and tort is all the more puzzling. In law and economics, legal …

A Comparative Fault Defense In Contract Law, Ariel Porat

Michigan Law Review

This Article calls for the recognition of a comparative fault defense in contract law. Part I sets the framework for this defense and suggests the situations in which it should apply. These situations are sorted under two headings: cases of noncooperation and cases of overreliance. Part II unfolds the main argument for recognizing the defense and recommends applying the defense only in cases where cooperation or avoidance of overreliance is low cost.

The Role Of Fault In Contract Law: Unconscionability, Unexpected Circumstances, Interpretation, Mistake, And Nonperformance, Melvin Aron Eisenberg

Michigan Law Review

It is often asserted that contract law is based on strict liability, not fault. This assertion is incorrect. Fault is a basic building block of contract law, and pervades the field. Some areas of contract law, such as unconscionability, are largely fault based. Other areas, such as interpretation, include sectors that are fault based in significant part. Still other areas, such as liability for nonperformance, superficially appear to rest on strict liability, but actually rest in significant part on the fault of breaking a promise without sufficient excuse. Contract law discriminates between two types of fault: the violation of strong …

Willfulness Versus Expectation: A Promisor-Based Defense Of Willful Breach Doctrine, Steve Thel, Peter Siegelman

Michigan Law Review

Willful breach doctrine should be a major embarrassment to contract law. If the default remedy for breach is expectation damages designed to put the injured promisee in the position she would have been in if the contract had been performed, then the promisor's behavior-the reason for the breach-looks to be irrelevant in assessing damages. And yet the cases are full of references to "willful" breaches, which seem often to be treated more harshly than ordinary ones based on the promisor's bad/willful conduct. Our explanation is that willful breaches are best understood as those that should be prevented or deterred because …

Fault At The Contract-Tort Interface, Roy Kreitner

Michigan Law Review

The formative period in the history of contract and tort (in the second half of the nineteenth century) may be characterized by the cleavage of contract and tort around the concept of fault: tort modernized by moving from strict liability to a regime of "no liability without fault," while contract moved toward strict liability. The opposing attitudes toward fault are puzzling at first glance. Nineteenth-century scholars of private law offered explanations for the opposition, reasoning that alternative ideas about fault account for the different character of state involvement in enforcing private law rights: tort law governs liabilities imposed by law …