Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Justice And Reasonable Care In Negligence Law, Richard W. Wright
Justice And Reasonable Care In Negligence Law, Richard W. Wright
All Faculty Scholarship
The academic literature generally assumes that an aggregate-risk-utility test is employed to determine whether conduct was reasonable or negligent. This aggregate-risk-utility test is a transparent implementation of the basic impartiality and aggregation principles of utilitarianism and the most popular (Kaldor-Hicks) interpretation of economic efficiency. Thus, the test's assumed prevalence as the criterion of reasonableness in negligence law has been highlighted by legal economists as confirmation of the utilitarian efficiency foundations of tort law, while those, including Ronald Dworkin, who think that the law, including tort law, is or should be grounded on principles of justice have sought to demonstrate that, …
Negligence In The Courts: Introduction And Commentary, In Symposium, Negligence In The Courts: The Actual Practice, Richard W. Wright
Negligence In The Courts: Introduction And Commentary, In Symposium, Negligence In The Courts: The Actual Practice, Richard W. Wright
All Faculty Scholarship
This article is an introduction to and commentary on the contributions to a "Symposium on Negligence in the Courts: the Actual Practice." The contributors all conclude that the tests of negligence that are actually employed by the courts differ from the aggregate-risk-utility test that is generally assumed in the academic literature, including the Restatement of Torts. Patrick Kelley and Laurel Wendt's survey of all the standard jury instructions on negligence in the United States finds only one instruction, in Louisiana, that mentions a risk-utility or cost-benefit test of negligence, and that instruction merely suggests, as a discretionary option, the weighing …
Teaching Real Torts: Using Barry Werth's Damages In The Law School Classroom, Tom Baker
Teaching Real Torts: Using Barry Werth's Damages In The Law School Classroom, Tom Baker
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Vitality Of Joint And Several Liability: Brief Amici Curiae Of American Law Professors In Support Of Respondents, Richard W. Wright
The Vitality Of Joint And Several Liability: Brief Amici Curiae Of American Law Professors In Support Of Respondents, Richard W. Wright
All Faculty Scholarship
Tort reform advocates hoped to use a recent case, Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers, 123 S. Ct. 1210 (2003), as a vehicle for obtaining a Supreme Court opinion critical of the traditional doctrine of joint and several liability. Under this doctrine, each of the multiple responsible causes of an injury is potentially fully liable for that injury. The specific issue in Ayers was the availability of joint-and-several liability under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which employs common-law tort doctrines while excluding some of the traditional defenses. The defendant claimed that the traditional common law used fractional apportionment …