Law Commons^™

Tort Theory And The Restatement, In Retrospect, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

This is my third paper on the Restatement (Third) of Torts. In my first paper, The Theory of Tort Doctrine and the Restatement (Third) of Torts, I offered a positive economic theory of the tort doctrine that had been presented in the Restatement (Third) of Torts: General Principles, and also an optimistic vision of how positive theoretical analysis could be integrated with the Restatement project. In my second paper, The Economics of the Restatement and of the Common Law, I set out the utilitarian-economic theory of how the common law litigation process could generate optimal (efficient, wealth-maximizing) rules and compared …

The Macpherson-Henningsen Puzzle, Victor P. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

In the landmark case of MacPherson v. Buick, an automobile company was held liable for negligence notwithstanding a lack of privity with the injured driver. Four decades later, in Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, the court held unconscionable the standard automobile company warranty which limited its responsibility to repair and replacement, even in a case involving physical injury. This suggests a puzzle: if it were so easy for firms to contract out of liability, did MacPherson accomplish anything?

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

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Driverless Cars And The Much Delayed Tort Law Revolution, Andrzej Rapaczynski

Faculty Scholarship

The most striking development in the American tort law of the last century was the quick rise and fall of strict manufacturers’ liability for the huge social losses associated with the use of industrial products. The most important factor in this process has been the inability of the courts and academic commentators to develop a workable theory of design defects, resulting in a wholesale return of negligence as the basis of products liability jurisprudence. This article explains the reasons for this failure and argues that the development of digital technology, and the advent of self-driving cars in particular, is likely …

Negligence And Two-Sided Causation, Keith N. Hylton, Haizhen Lin, Hyo-Youn Chu

Faculty Scholarship

We extend the economic analysis of negligence and intervening causation to "two-sided causation" scenarios. In the two-sided causation scenario the effectiveness of the injurer's care depends on some intervention, and the risk of harm generated by the injurer's failure to take care depends on some other intervention. We find that the distortion from socially optimal care is more severe in the two-sided causation scenario than in the one-sided causation scenario, and generally in the direction of excessive care. The practical lesson is that the likelihood that injurers will have optimal care incentives under the negligence test in the presence of …

Contract Law And The Hand Formula, Daniel P. O'Gorman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Information And Causation In Tort Law: Generalizing The Learned Hand Test For Causation Cases, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

This paper discusses the economics of causation in tort law, describing precise implications for precautionary incentives when courts are and are not perfectly informed. With precautionary incentives identified, we can ask whether the causation inquiry enhances welfare, and if so under what conditions. Perhaps the most important innovation applies to the Hand Formula. When causation is an issue, the probability of causal intervention should be part of the Hand test, and the generalized Hand test offers a method of distinguishing significant classes of causation cases. I close with implications for the moral significance of causation and for economic analysis of …

Causation In Tort Law: A Reconsideration, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

Causation is a source of confusion in tort theory, as well as a flash point for the debate between consequentialist and deontological legal theorists.¹ Consequentialists argue that causation is generally determined by the policy grounds for negligence, not by a technical analysis of the facts.² Conversely, deontologists reject the view that policy motives determine causation findings.

Causation has also generated different approaches within the consequentialist school. Some take an essentially forward- looking approach to formalizing causation analysis, finding causation analysis to be subsumed within the Hand Formula.⁴ Another approach within the consequentialist school closely examines the incentive …

Negligence, Causation, And Incentives For Care, Keith N. Hylton, Haizhen Lin

Faculty Scholarship

We present a new model of negligence and causation and examine the influence of the negligence test, in the presence of intervening causation, on the level of care. In this model, the injurer's decision to take care reduces the likelihood of an accident only in the event that some nondeterministic intervention occurs. The effects of the negligence test depend on the information available to the court, and the manner in which the test is implemented. The key effect of the negligence test, in the presence of intervening causation, is to induce actors to take into account the distribution of the …

The Domagala Dilemma-Domagala V. Rolland, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

In Domagala v. Rolland, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review in a personal injury case that was dominated by duty and special relationship issues, even though the parties agreed that there was no special relationship between them. The case, straddling the misfeasance/nonfeasance line, was complicated by the defense theory (that the lack of a special relationship meant that the defendant owed no duty to protect or warn the plaintiff), and the plaintiff’s theory (that the defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff because he acted affirmatively, even if the risk to the plaintiff did not become apparent …

Further Perspectives On Corporate Wrongdoing, In Pari Delicto, And Auditor Malpractice, Deborah A. Demott

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

New Private Law Theory And Tort Law: A Comment, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

This comment was prepared for the Harvard Law Review symposium on “The New Private Law,” as a response to Benjamin Zipursky’s principal paper on torts. I find Zipursky’s reliance on Cardozo’s Palsgraf opinion as a foundational source of tort theory troubling, for two reasons. First, Cardozo fails to offer a consistent theoretical framework for tort law in his opinions, many of which are difficult to reconcile with one another. Second, Palsgraf should be understood as an effort by Cardozo to provide greater predictability, within a special class of proximate cause cases, by reallocating decision-making power from juries to judges. It …

Brief Of Professors Of Law As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants, Neil Vidmar, David Zevan

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Recovery Of “Intrinsic Value” Damages In Case Of Negligently Killed Pet Dog, William A. Reppy Jr., Calley Gerber

Faculty Scholarship

The North Carolina Court of Appeals, in a case where negligent killing of a pet dog with no market value was admitted, has denied recovery of “intrinsic” damages (also called “actual” damages). Shera v. NC State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital, 723 S.E.2d 352 (N.C. App. 2012). Because the holding is narrow and the type of damages denied are not the same as emotional damages, a close look at the decision is warranted.

Minnesota Negligence Law And The Restatement (Third) Of Torts: Liability For Physical And Emotional Harms, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

The purpose of this article is to provide a foundation for judges and lawyers, primarily in Minnesota, who are seeking to understand how the Third Restatement’s approach to negligence law fits with Minnesota negligence law. The first Part of the article examines the approach of the Third Restatement. Because decisions in other states applying the Third Restatement will be important for courts in Minnesota and elsewhere in deciding whether to apply the Third Restatement, the second Part examines early reports on the Third Restatement in Iowa, Nebraska, Arizona, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and Delaware.

Property Rules And Defensive Conduct In Tort Law Theory, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

What role does defensive conduct play in a utilitarian theory of tort law? Why are rational (as opposed to instinctive) defensive actions permitted by tort doctrine?

To address these questions I will build on the property and liability rules framework. I argue that defensive conduct plays an important role in establishing the justification for and understanding the function of property rules, such as trespass doctrine. I show that when defensive actions are taken into account, property rules are socially preferable to liability rules in low transaction cost settings, because they obviate costly defensive actions. I extend the framework to provide …

Most Claims Settle: Implications For Alternative Dispute Resolution From A Profile Of Medical-Malpractice Claims In Florida, Neil Vidmar, Mirya Holman, Paul Lee

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Juries And Medical Malpractice Claims: Empirical Facts Versus Myths, Neil Vidmar

Faculty Scholarship

Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, anti-doctor, irresponsible in awarding damages to patients, and casting a threatening shadow over the settlement process. Several decades of systematic empirical research yields little support for these claims. This article summarizes those findings. Doctors win about three cases of four that go to trial. Juries are skeptical about inflated claims. Jury verdicts on negligence are roughly similar to assessments made by medical experts and judges. Damage awards tend to correlate positively with the severity of injury. There are defensible reasons for large damage awards. Moreover, the largest awards are typically settled …

A Watershed Moment: Reversals Of Tort Theory In The Nineteenth Century, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

This article offers a new assessment of the stages in the development of fault and strict liability and their justifications in American history. Building from the evidence that a wide majority of state courts adopted Fletcher v. Rylands and strict liability for unnatural or hazardous activities in the late nineteenth century, a watershed moment turns to the surprising reversals in tort ideology in the wake of flooding disasters.

An established view of American tort law is that the fault rule supposedly prevailed over strict liability in the nineteenth century, with some arguing that it was based on instrumental arguments to …

Tort Negligence, Cost-Benefit Analysis, And Tradeoffs: A Closer Look At The Controversy, Kenneth Simons

Faculty Scholarship

What is the proper role of cost-benefit analysis in understanding the tort concept of negligence or reasonable care? A straightforward question, you might think. But it is a question that manages to elicit groans of exasperation from those on both sides of the controversy.

For most utilitarians and adherents to law and economics, the answer is obvious: to say that people should not be negligent is to say that they should minimize the sum of the costs of accidents and the costs of preventing accidents. Under the economic formulation of the famous Learned Hand test, they should take a precaution …

Duty In Tort Law: An Economic Approach, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

Theories of tort law have focused on the breach and causation components of negligence, saying little if anything about duty. This paper provides a positive economic theory of duty doctrine. The theory that best explains duty doctrines in tort law is the same as the theory that explains strict liability doctrine. The core function of both sets of doctrines is to regulate the frequency or scale of activities that have substantial external effects. Strict liability aims to suppress or tax activities that carry unusually large external costs. Duty doctrines, especially those relieving actors of a duty of care, serve several …

Radke V. County Of Freeborn: The Return Of The Public Duty Rule?, Mehmet K. Konar-Steenberg

Faculty Scholarship

Article explores when Minnesota law provides a cause of action against government actors who are negligent in the performance of their duties. Part II of this Article traces the separate development of the common law public duty rule and the implied statutory cause of action analysis. Part III examines the Hoppe case, where the supreme court seemed to hold that the absence of an implied statutory cause of action precluded the existence of a common law cause of action. Part IV then assesses the Radke court’s effort to resolve the confusion flowing from Hoppe.

The Tale Of A Tail, James F. Hogg

Faculty Scholarship

The commercial general liability insurance industry shifted, in 1986, from the use of an “occurrence-based” to a “claims-made” policy form. So-called “tail” or “long tail” claims have continued nevertheless, to be asserted under the older “occurrence” policies which required that injury occur during the term of the policy, but not that the claim for such injury be made or brought at any particular time. In seeking state approval to use the new “claims-made” form in 1985-86, the insurance industry represented that the new form would not affect coverage under the old “occurrence” form. Despite that representation, insurers are now asserting, …

With The Legislature's Permission And The Supreme Court"S Consent, Common Law Social Host Liability Returns To Minnesota, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

In 1990, the Minnesota Legislature amended the Civil Damage Act to allow for common law tort claims against persons 21 years old or older who knowingly provide alcohol to a person under 21 years of age. The 1990 amendment is unique because the legislature in effect appears to be releasing its stranglehold on liquor liability law, permitting the courts to apply common law negligence principles under the defined circumstances, but without providing any guidelines as to how the common law remedy should be formulated. The interpretive problems the amendment creates will eventually have to be resolved by the courts. The …

Discontinuities, Causation, And Grady's Uncertainty Theorem, Stephen G. Marks

Faculty Scholarship

In a series of articles, Mark Grady considers the problem of discontinuity under a tort negligence regime. The discontinuity can be described as follows. A potential injurer who adopts the optimal level of precaution is completely shielded from liability under the negligence system even though accidents occur. A very small decrease in the level of precaution below the optimal level suddenly exposes the potential injurer to liability for those accidents. This discontinuity makes the expected cost of under-investment in precaution greater than the expected cost of overinvestment. In a world where there is uncertainty about the optimal level of precaution …

Recovery For Pure Economic Loss In Tort: Another Look At Robins Dry Dock V. Flint, Victor P. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

In Robins Dry Dock and Repair Co. v. Flint, the Supreme Court laid down the general proposition that claims for pure economic loss are not recoverable in tort. Although courts have sometimes ignored or distinguished Robins, its holding is still a central feature of tort law. In a recent en bane decision regarding claims by those injured by a chemical spill in the Mississippi River, the Fifth Circuit engaged in an extensive debate over the continued vitality of Robins and concluded (despite five dissenters) that it remained good law.

The Robins rule is overbroad, lumping together a number of …

Common-Law Background Of Nineteenth-Century Tort Law, The , Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

A century ago Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., examined the history of negligence in search of a general theory of tort. He concluded that from the earliest times in England, the basis of tort liability was fault, or the failure to exercise due care. Liability for an injury to another arose whenever the defendant failed "to use such care as a prudent man would use under the circumstances.” A decade ago Morton J. Horwitz reexamined the history of negligence for the same purpose and concluded that negligence was not originally understood as carelessness or fault. Rather, negligence meant "neglect or failure …

Joint And Several Liability Minnesota Style, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

This article examines the rule of joint and several liability as it was adopted, modified, and applied in Minnesota circa 1989. The article first examines the judicial origins and applications of the rule in Minnesota. It then analyzes the impact of the comparative negligence and fault legislation on the rule of joint and several liability, including the limitations imposed on the rule in 1978, 1986, and 1988. Finally, it makes some suggestions for interpreting joint and several liability legislation that are consistent with the legislative history of the legislation as well as with Minnesota Supreme Court decisions concerning aggregation under …

Products Liability Law In Minnesota: Design Defect And Failure To Warn Claims, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

The Minnesota law of products liability underwent significant changes in the 1980s. The courts filled in gaps left open since the Minnesota Supreme Court initially adopted strict liability in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co.' in 1967, but they also raised new issues and left other issues open. This Article analyzes these developments in Minnesota products liability law. The broad focus is on standards in design and warning cases. In the course of the analysis, the Article focuses on the issues that had been left unsettled in Minnesota law in those areas. The Article first addresses the elements of a strict liability …

Accountable Accountants: Is Third-Party Liability Necessary?, Victor P. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

Should accountants be liable to third parties if they conduct an audit in negligent manner? A half century ago, in Ultramares Corporation v. Touche, Niven & Co., Cardozo argued that they should not, unless their performance could be characterized as fraud. In recent years, courts in a minority of jurisdictions have concluded that Cardozo's argument is no longer compelling and they have found that "foreseeable" third parties could bring a tort action for ordinary negligence against the accountants. In addition to being subject to tort actions, accountants may also be liable under federal and state securities laws.

Suits against …