Law Commons^™

Arkansas, Meet Tarasoff: The Question Of Expanded Liability To Third Persons For Mental Health Professionals, J. Thomas Sullivan

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

An Intentional Tort Theory Of Patents, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

This Article challenges the dogma of U.S. patent law that direct infringement is a strict liability tort. Impermissibly practicing a patented invention does create liability even if the infringer did not intend to infringe or know about the patent. The consensus is that this is a form of strict liability. The flaw in the consensus is that it proves too little, for the same is true of intentional torts: intent to commit the tort is unnecessary, and ignorance of the legal right is no excuse. What is relevant is intent to perform the action that the law deems tortious. So …

Cocktails On Campus: Are Libations A Liability?, Susan S. Bendlin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Responsibility And The Negligence Standard, Joseph Raz

Faculty Scholarship

The paper has dual aim: to analyse the structure of negligence, and to use it to offer an explanation of responsibility (for actions, omissions, consequences) in terms of the relations which must exist between the action (omission, etc.) and the agents powers of rational agency if the agent is responsible for the action. The discussion involves reflections on the relations between the law and the morality of negligence, the difference between negligence and strict liability, the role of excuses and the grounds of duties to pay damages.

Scuba Diving Buddies: Rights, Obligations, And Liabilities, Phyllis G. Coleman

Faculty Scholarship

A common misconception is that scuba diving is dangerous; the reality is that divers are more likely to be hurt in their cars driving to the dive site than in an underwater accident. Arguably one reason the sport is so safe is the widespread, and often mandatory, use of the buddy system.

A buddy expects his partner to perform a variety of tasks, which include assisting during an emergency. However, a glaring omission in the legal literature is the important issue of what happens when a diver's failure to act results in his buddy's death or serious injuries. This article …

A Restatement (Third) Of Intentional Torts?, Kenneth Simons

Faculty Scholarship

Some intentional tort doctrines have developed in intriguing ways since the Restatement Second was published, and other doctrines remain contentious or obscure. For example, disagreement persists about whether the tort of battery requires merely the (single) intent to make a nonconsensual contact, or the (dual) intent both (1) to contact and (2) either to harm or to offend. The single intent view is much more plausible; the dual intent view cannot make much sense of the liability of well-intentioned doctors for battery if they exceed the patient's consent, or the liability of pranksters, or the well-accepted doctrine of apparent consent. …

Joint And Several Liability In Minnesota: The 2003 Model, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

The 2003 amendment to Minnesota’s Comparative Act can be assessed in various ways. Whether it will have the economic impact its proponents suggest it will have is a question that is not susceptible of a ready answer now, or perhaps in the immediate future. From a fairness standpoint, any assessment of the amendment has to take into consideration the full reach of the Comparative Fault Act. It is important to understand that on balance the Act works to the disadvantage of the plaintiff in a variety of ways. The plaintiff cannot recover if the plaintiff’s fault is greater than the …

Recovery For Economic Loss Following The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Victor P. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

The physical cleanup following one of the worst oil spills in history, that of the Exxon Valdez, is done. The legal cleanup, however, has barely begun. Over 100 law firms participating in over 200 suits in federal and state courts involving more than 30,000 claims are presently engaged in litigation. Fishermen, cannery workers, fishing lodges, tour boat operators, oil companies whose shipments were delayed, and even California motorists facing higher gasoline prices have filed claims against Exxon and its fellow defendants.

Most claimants face a formidable roadblock, the so-called Robins doctrine. Under Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint …

Keeping The Pierringer Promise: Fair Settlements And Fair Trials, Peter B. Knapp

Faculty Scholarship

This article explores why Perringer releases have failed to promise fairness to the nonsettling defendant. For over thirty years, Pierringer releases have been part of the ebb and flow of civil litigation. In 1978, the Minnesota Supreme Court officially approved the use of Pierringer releases in Minnesota. When first adopted, the release seemed to promise something for everyone. The Pierringer release even offered a promise of fairness to the nonsettling defendant: Be assured that, no matter what the outcome of trial, you will pay no more than your “fair share” of the verdict. Unfortunately, however, largely because of the impact …

Negligence, Causation And Information, Stephen G. Marks

Faculty Scholarship

This note suggests a model to unify, in a simple information-based framework, the notion of negligence and the various notions of causation. In effect, the model demonstrates that negligence, probabilistic cause and cause-in-fact represent an identical concept applied to different information sets. This note uses the unified framework to develop a simple algorithm for the practical application of the principles of causation in the law of negligence.

Misrepresentation - Part Ii, Fleming James, Oscar S. Gray

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.