Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Contract Breaches And The Criminal/Civil Divide: An Inter-Common Law Analysis, Monu Bedi
Contract Breaches And The Criminal/Civil Divide: An Inter-Common Law Analysis, Monu Bedi
College of Law Faculty
Scholars have long debated why certain common law breaches in American jurisprudence receive criminal punishment (imprisonment) while others only receive civil sanctions (monetary damages). Scholars like Richard Posner and Guido Calabresi have used economic-based models and the notion of efficiency to explain why torts only receive civil sanctions but crimes receive criminal punishment. Others like John Coffee and Paul Robinson have questioned the explanatory power of these models. Instead, they have focused on the moral difference between torts and crimes. Simply put, a crime’s intentional nature makes it morally worse than the carelessness typified by tortious activity. Interestingly, scholars on …
The Common Law Of Disability Discrimination, Mark C. Weber
The Common Law Of Disability Discrimination, Mark C. Weber
Mark C. Weber
In many cases alleging race and sex discrimination, plaintiffs append common law claims to cases asserting federal or state statutory causes of action. In other race and sex cases, plaintiffs put forward these common law claims without making any federal or state statutory claims. Less frequent, and much less frequently discussed by scholars, are common law claims for conduct constituting disability discrimination. Nevertheless, there are sound theoretical and practical reasons to develop a common law of disability discrimination. On the theoretical side of the discussion, federal statutory disability discrimination claims are not exclusive, and the common law can both draw …
The Calculus Of Animal Valuation: Crafting A Viable Remedy, Margit Livingston
The Calculus Of Animal Valuation: Crafting A Viable Remedy, Margit Livingston
College of Law Faculty
This article examines the current tort doctrine that values companion animals only at fair market value, which is minimal for most pets. The author argues that this rule severely undercompensates most plaintiffs whose companion animals are destroyed through another's negligent or intentional act. Pet owners typically keep companion animals for relational, not economic, purposes. As a result, the formulation for tort damages should reflect the true worth of these creatures in our lives. The author proposes a damages scheme for plaintiffs under which they could recover the replacement cost of their deceased companion animal plus a limited amount of damages …