Law | Open Access Articles | Digital Commons Network™

Virginia Should Abolish The Archaic Tort Defense Of Contributory Negligence And Adopt A Comparative Negligence Defense In Its Place, Peter Nash Swisher

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Academic Concerns"-Caring About Conversation In Canadian Common Law, Karen Crawley, Shauna Van Praagh

Dalhousie Law Journal

The Supreme Court of Canada, in its 2001 decision in Cooper v Hobart, refined the test in Canadian common law for establishing a duty of care in the tort of negligence. Although aware of the complexities and ongoing challenges of the "duty of care" concept, the Supreme Court openly labelled these concerns as "academic." This article confirms these concerns as "academic," but insists that this label underlines their centrality not only to an understanding of the tort of negligence but to the nature and form of common law reasoning. By pointing to errors in the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment-errors …

Go to article

Respondent Superior As An Affirmative Defense: How Employers Immunize Themselves From Direct Negligence Claims, J. J. Burns

Michigan Law Review

Most courts hold that where a defendant employer admits that it is vicariously liable for its employee's negligence, a plaintiff's additional claims of negligent entrustment, hiring, retention, supervision, and training must be dismissed. Generally, courts apply this rule based on the logic that allowing a plaintiff's additional claims adds no potential liability beyond that which has already been admitted. Furthermore, since the additional claims merely allege a redundant theory of recovery once a respondeat superior admission has been made, the prejudicial evidence of an employee's prior bad acts which often accompanies direct negligence claims against employers can be excluded without …