Law Commons^™

Scientific Uncertainty And Causation In Tort Law, Mark Geistfeld

Vanderbilt Law Review

Tort cases involving scientific uncertainty frequently present courts with a difficult causation issue. In the paradigmatic case, the available scientific evidence indicates that a substance might be hazardous, but does not establish that the substance is hazardous.' When presented with such evidence, courts must decide whether the plaintiff has adequately proven that her injury was tortiously caused by the substance.

This causal issue potentially arises whenever we do not fully understand how a substance interacts with the body and produces an adverse health outcome. We do not, for example, adequately understand the etiology of cancer.2 To assess whether a substance …

Plaintiff's Standard Of Care After Hochfelder: Toward A Theory Of Causation, Robert P. Bryant

Vanderbilt Law Review

The extended debate by the Institute illustrates the logical and even emotional difficulty of dealing with the victim of an admittedly intentional deception who has acted foolishly in his own behalf and does not seem to deserve recovery. The crux of the controversy in the common law deceit cases mirrors that in the 10b-5 cases:should the victim have to investigate, and what might trigger an obligation to investigate? As this discussion demonstrates, tort principles provide some guidance. In deceit cases, the obligations placed on the plaintiff arise from the requirement that his reliance be justified. To the extent that his …

Torts -- 1961 Tennessee Survey, Dix W. Noel

Vanderbilt Law Review

The tort cases reported during the past year were of unusual interest. A number of them dealt with points of first impression in this state. Others represent developments of the law designed to bring it into harmony with changing conditions, as in the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to the unexplained fall of an air-liner, or in the clarification of the duties of an automobile driver to a mere licensee in the vehicle. While the basic pattern for justice in the field of torts has been worked out by our courts with much care and wisdom, occasional modifications …

Torts -- 1958 Tennessee Survey, John W. Wade

Vanderbilt Law Review

The number of torts cases was somewhat less this year than in past years, being below the forty figure rather than above it. There were no particularly significant legal developments in the field. Perhaps the cases indicate, however, a developing fashion in automobile negligence actions. At least four of the cases seem to have been brought for whiplash injuries.'

Torts -- 1957 Tennessee Survey, John W. Wade

Vanderbilt Law Review

One who performs an act is ordinarily under a duty to act carefully.When the defendant has acted there is seldom a problem regarding the duty to use care. But when the defendant has failed to act the question of duty raises a substantial problem.' The rule is stated that there is no duty to act, but the exceptions are many. One arises when there is a particular relationship between the parties; another, when the defendant had commenced to act. Both exceptions are involved in Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. v. Stapleton.

Torts -- 1955 Tennessee Survey, John W. Wade

Vanderbilt Law Review

The decision of whether a defendant is negligent is normally for the jury to decide. This year, as in other years, the Tennessee courts have taken frequent opportunity to emphasize this,' though a directed verdict is proper when the jury could reasonably reach only a single result. The negligence issue is submitted to the jury in terms of the usual standard--whether the defendant acted as a reasonable prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances. At times some of the circumstances may be more specifically adverted to in the instructions. Thus, under the "emergency", or "sudden peril …