Law Commons^™

Connecticut’S Crumbling Foundations: Legal Remedies And Legislative Responses, Jacqueline T. Bashaw

Connecticut Law Review

Latent harms pose unique challenges for the legal system. Such issues are often referred to as long-tail issues, wherein the actual harmful chain of events is set in motion years before it is discovered and wreaks havoc. Asbestos is one example. Pyrrhotite is another.

A seemingly innocuous mineral, pyrrhotite has infiltrated Connecticut homes. Somewhere between 3,000 to 35,000 concrete foundations were poured in the state from 1983 to 2016, with varying amounts of pyrrhotite trapped within. These foundations have begun to deteriorate, costing homeowners thousands of dollars as their investments quite literally crumble beneath their feet. While the problem was …

Internet Jurisdiction And The 21st Century: Zippo, Calder, And The Metaverse, Gretchen Yelmini

Connecticut Law Review

Internet use in the United States continues to increase at a rate that outpaces the legal system. From reliance on outdated precedent, differing long-arm statutes, and emergent technologies, there are unanswered questions of whether existing precedent is sufficient to handle our increasingly borderless society.

Many courts still rely on the Zippo test despite the exponential advancements in how we use the internet in the twenty-five years since the Western District of Pennsylvania developed a framework for this issue. The Supreme Court has continued to avoid directly addressing the issue. In 2014, the Court left decisions on virtual presence to “another …

Why Indiana Harbor Is The Worst Torts Decision In American History

Connecticut Law Review

Judge Richard A. Posner’s opinion for the Seventh Circuit in Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., concerning a spill of the hazardous chemical acrylonitrile at a railyard near Chicago, is considered the definitive statement on the abnormally dangerous activity doctrine. That doctrine (also known as the ultrahazardous activity doctrine) holds that one who engages in an abnormally dangerous activity is strictly liable for harm caused to others, regardless of negligence. However, Judge Posner’s opinion suggests that strict liability should rarely displace the negligence standard, even for commercial activities that externalize high degrees of risk. That approach leads …