Law Commons^™

Time To Slapp Back: Advocating Against The Adverse Civil Liberties Implications Of Litigation That Undermines Public Participation, Jennifer Safstrom

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Defamation law is a catchall term encompassing civil claims for reputational harm to an individual, including slander and libel. Defamation claims originated in English common law and have since evolved within the American legal system. Scholars have characterized the law of defamation as “a forest of complexities, overgrown with anomalies, inconsistencies, and perverse rigidities” and as a “‘fog of fictions, inferences, and presumptions.’” Amid these inherent variations and complexities of defamation law and litigation — including the largely state-specific nature of tort law development — emerges a disturbing trend across jurisdictions. In the modern era, defamation claims have been used …

"Sorry" Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail To Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk, W. Kip Viscusi, Benjamin J. Mcmichael, R. Lawrence Van Horn

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Based on case studies indicating that apologies from physicians to patients can promote healing, understanding, and dispute resolution, 38 states have sought to reduce litigation and medical malpractice liability by enacting apology laws. Apology laws facilitate apologies by making them inadmissible in subsequent malpractice trials.

The underlying assumption regarding the potential efficacy of these laws is that, after receiving an apology, patients will be less likely to pursue a malpractice claim and will be more likely to settle those claims that are filed. However, once a patient has been made aware that the physician has committed a medical error, the …

Product Liability Litigation With Risk Averson, W. Kip Viscusi

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The recent law and economics literature has directed much energy toward identifying the various factors that determine whether parties will litigate or settle accident claims.' The substantive interest in this area rests in large measure on the obvious element of conflict in all these cases: the plaintiff is trying to obtain reimbursement for his losses from the defendant, which the defendant wishes to avoid paying. The strategic structure of their interaction is quite complex because the outcomes of bringing claims are heavily influenced by the costs, usually substantial, of both bargaining and litigating. The game between plaintiff and defendant is …