Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Restating International Torts: Problems Of Process And Substance In The Ali's Third Restatement Of Torts, Nancy J. Moore
Restating International Torts: Problems Of Process And Substance In The Ali's Third Restatement Of Torts, Nancy J. Moore
Faculty Scholarship
The American Law Institute’s Third Restatement of Torts was initially conceived as a series of separate projects, each with its own reporters. From 1998 through 2010, the ALI completed and published three different segments: Products Liability, Apportionment of Liability, and Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm. Initially, the ALI did not intend to restate the intentional torts, believing that the Second Restatement’s treatment of these torts was clear and largely authoritative. It was ultimately persuaded that there were numerous unresolved issues that needed to be addressed. As a result, it authorized a new project on Intentional Torts---a project that is …
Intent In Tort Law, Keith N. Hylton
Intent In Tort Law, Keith N. Hylton
Faculty Scholarship
This paper, prepared for the 2009 Monsanto Lecture in Tort Jurisprudence, explains intent standards in tort law on the basis of the incentive effects of tort liability rules. Intent rules serve a regulatory function by internalizing costs optimally. The intent standard for battery internalizes costs in a manner that discourages socially harmful acts and at the same time avoids discouraging socially beneficial activity. The intent standard for assault is more difficult to satisfy than that for battery because it is designed to provide a subsidy of a sort to the speech that is often intermixed with potentially threatening conduct. In …
A Restatement (Third) Of Intentional Torts?, Kenneth Simons
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. …
Draft Of The Constitutionalization Of Intentional Torts - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Draft Of The Constitutionalization Of Intentional Torts - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
The Supreme Court has often faced the question of whether an individual who alleges that he has been injured by a state or local official or by a local governmental entity, can bring a constitutional tort action under section 1983 when state doctrines of sovereign or official immunity would make it impossible for the individual to prosecute an ordinary tort suit in the relevant state court. The Court has consistently held that when an official violates a substantive provision of the Constitution, only an immunity that is consistent with the purpose of section 1983 and the Consitution can be tolerated.