Law Commons^™

Dualism And Doctrine, Dov Fox, Alex Stein

Indiana Law Journal

What kinds of harm among those that tortfeasors inflict are worthy of compensation? Which forms of self-incriminating evidence are privileged against government compulsion? What sorts of facts constitute a criminal defendant’s intent? Existing doctrine pins the answer to all of these questions on whether the injury, facts, or evidence at stake are “mental” or “physical.” The assumption that operations of the mind are meaningfully distinct from those of the body animates fundamental rules in our law.

A tort victim cannot recover for mental harm on its own because the law presumes that he is able to unfeel any suffering arising …

A Re-Examination Of The Basis For Liability For Emotional Distress, Fowler V. Harper, Mary Coate Mcneely

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.