Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Government Responsibility For Constitutional Torts, Christina B. Whitman
Government Responsibility For Constitutional Torts, Christina B. Whitman
Articles
This essay is about the language used to decide when governments should be held responsible for constitutional torts.' Debate about what is required of government officials, and what is required of government itself, is scarcely new. What is new, at least to American jurisprudence, is litigation against government units (rather than government officials) for constitutional injuries. 2 The extension of liability to institutional defendants introduces special problems for the language of responsibility. In a suit against an individual official it is easy to describe the wrong as the consequence of individual behavior that is inconsistent with community norms; the language …
United States-Based Multinational Corporations Should Be Tried In The United States For Their Extraterritorial Toxic Torts, Dianna B. Shew
United States-Based Multinational Corporations Should Be Tried In The United States For Their Extraterritorial Toxic Torts, Dianna B. Shew
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
When a foreign plaintiff sues a United States-based multinational for damages resulting from an extraterritorial toxic tort, the case should be tried in United States courts. The courts are assured of personal jurisdiction as long as there are sufficient contacts between the foreign subsidiary and the United States. Dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens is not desirable because the United States has a vested interest in monitoring and even influencing the behavior of multinationals that do business within its borders. The requisite "adequate alternative forum" is simply not available in some countries. In addition, despite their case backload, United …
Apportionment In Kentucky After Comparative Negligence, John M. Rogers
Apportionment In Kentucky After Comparative Negligence, John M. Rogers
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
Adoption of comparative negligence gives juries the task of allocating fault between a plaintiff and a defendant when both were negligent and both caused the plaintiff's injury. A logical corollary must be that juries are theoretically and practically able to make such an allocation. If so, it follows that juries are able to make such an allocation among multiple defendants, each of whom was found to be both negligent and a cause of the plaintiff's injury. The judicial adoption of comparative negligence in Kentucky therefore requires a reexamination of the rules applicable to multiple tortfeasors. Cases decided since the adoption …