Law Commons^™

The Nonfiduciary "Trust", Jeffrey A. Schoenblum

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article identifies and details the emergence in an increasing number of states of a new trust law that rejects the fundamental tenets of traditional trust law. This alternative concept of the trust liberates the trustee from any meaningful accountability to the beneficiary, the very core concept of traditional trust law. In short, these states are enabling the creation of what might be described as a "nonfiduciary trust."

Evaluating A Concussion Clause: Why The Nfl's Assumption Of Risk Defense Fares No Better As Time Goes On, Ramsey W. Fisher

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

This Article explores the future of National Football League (NFL) concussion litigation. Currently, hundreds of retired NFL players who previously brought negligence claims against the NFL are seeking compensation under a settlement agreement reached in 2012. With many retired players exempting themselves from the 2012 agreement and current players learning more about the long-term risks of football, the potential for future negligence lawsuits against the NFL is still ripe. In any such suit, a key issue will be the NFLs'assumption of risk defense. The allure of the defense is intuitive-when one chooses to play professional football for a living, he …

The Failure Of Liability In Modern Markets, Yesha Yadav

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In April 2015, the Department of Justice charged Navinder Sarao for his role in causing the Flash Crash-the near-1,000-point drop-and- rebound in the Dow Jones Index that roiled markets in May 2010. Sarao, a small-time British trader operating out of his parents' suburban basement, stood accused of putting together a string of illusory, fake orders that fooled markets enough to spark the largest single-day drop in the index's history. Commentators rightly contest whether a bit-player like Sarao could have unleashed a near-catastrophe on U.S. securities markets single-handedly. Yet, the complaint-and its causal account- point to a troubling dilemma facing scholars …

Can I Be Sued For That? Liability Risk And The Disclosure Of Clinically Significant Genetic Research Findings, Ellen Wright Clayton, Amy L. Mcguire, Et Al.

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Genomic researchers increasingly are faced with difficult decisions about whether, under what circumstances, and how to return research results and significant incidental findings to study participants. Many have argued that there is an ethical—maybe even a legal—obligation to disclose significant findings under some circumstances. At the international level, over the last decade there has begun to emerge a clear legal obligation to return significant findings discovered during the course of research. However, there is no explicit legal duty to disclose in the United States. This creates legal uncertainty that may lead to unmanaged variation in practice and poor quality care. …

Three And Out: The Nfl's Concussion Liability And How Players Can Tackle The Problem, Jeremy P. Gove

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

In 1952, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study stating that a player should not continue playing professional football after suffering three concussions. As players continue to get bigger, faster, and stronger, the number of concussions has increased. In response to this problem, the National Football League (NFL) commissioned a study run by scientists and NFL team doctors to determine the long-term effects of concussions. That committee determined that no long-term repercussions exist after experiencing a concussion while playing NFL football. Despite the scientific community's critiques of the study, the NFL used the committee's findings to create the …

Electronic Medical Records: A Prescription For Increased Medical Malpractice Liability?, Blake Carter

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

The cost and quality of health care is and most likely will continue to be one of the most important issues that the United States faces in the coming decade. Although no powerful antidote exists to cure this industry of all of its ailments, one potential suggestion to treat some of the symptoms is the introduction of electronic medical records (EMRs).

Members of the medical community, patients, and even politicians all agree that EMRs offer promising opportunities to improve the overall quality of health care. However, lost in the discussion of these opportunities, is a consideration of the potential side …

Purging Foreseeability, Ricardo J. Bascuas

Vanderbilt Law Review

For those responsible for understanding tort doctrine, the concept of foreseeability is a scourge, and its role in negligence cases is a vexing, crisscrossed morass. Indeed, one torts professor teaches that foreseeability might as well be called "strawberry shortcake," having been bent, muddled, and co-opted to such a degree that it has lost any real meaning.

Foreseeability's role in the element of "duty" in negligence is especially problematic. Courts have long tied the existence of a duty- that is, whether an allegedly negligent defendant owed an obligation of care under the circumstances-to foreseeability. The more foreseeable the risk, the resulting …

Comparative Fault To The Limits, Ellen M. Bublick

Vanderbilt Law Review

Comparative-fault defenses rarely attract much public attention. However, a recent lawsuit highlighted the subject. In a suit filed against the archdiocese of Boston stemming from an ongoing sexual abuse scandal, Cardinal Bernard Law asserted that a boy who had been abused by a priest from the time that he was six years old to the time that he was thirteen years old was himself guilty of comparative fault. The defense became the subject of immediate public scrutiny. Commentators described the defense with adjectives ranging from "reprehensible," "appalling," and "not sensitive," to "legalese," "boilerplate," "standard," and even "necessary.'"

The Cardinal's defense, …

The Hand Formula In The Draft "Restatement (Third) Of Torts": Encompassing Fairness As Well As Efficiency Values, Kenneth W. Simons

Vanderbilt Law Review

The definition of negligence in the draft Restatement (Third) of Torts: General Principles (Discussion Draft) ("Discussion Draft") employs a version of the Learned Hand formula. According to the chief Reporter, Professor Gary Schwartz, who is responsible for this draft, the Hand formula can accommodate both economic and fairness accounts of negligence law.

Is he correct? I will argue that he is, and that the Hand formula, suitably defined and explained, is indeed an appropriate general criterion for negligence. At the same time, however, the current Discussion Draft is deficient in some respects. It does not adequately allay the fears of …

The Trouble With Negligence, Kenneth S. Abraham

Vanderbilt Law Review

The concept of negligence dominates tort law. Most tort cases are about negligence. Much tort law scholarship over the past several decades has been about the meaning of negligence. The new draft Restatement (Third) of Torts: General Principles ("Discussion Draft") devotes the vast majority of its first volume to negligence. And the idea of negligence as a liability standard is highly attractive to both the courts and commentators.

All the attention that negligence receives is not surprising, given the unattractiveness of the alternatives. Imposing liability only when the injurer intended harm seems unduly limited, in that it absolves injurers of …

The Theory Of Tort Doctrine And The Restatement (Third) Of Torts, Keith N. Hylton

Vanderbilt Law Review

Though at times a source of controversy, the American Law Institute performs an enormous public service through its Restatement projects. One of the initial hurdles any such project confronts is whether it should aim to clarify and illuminate the law, or to push the law in a certain direction. I think the Restatement project is most productive when it aims to clarify and illuminate rather than guide or control the development of legal doctrine. Efforts to guide and control risk producing questionable interpretations of the aw, undermining the value of the Restatement in the long run. Fortunately, the Restatement of …

Cost-Benefit Analysis And The Negligence Standard, Stephen R. Perry

Vanderbilt Law Review

In his commentary on the proposed Restatement (Third) of Torts: General Principles (Discussion Draft) ("Discussion Draft"), Stephen Gilles does an excellent job of analyzing the role of cost- benefit analysis in the characterization of reasonable care in previous restatements, and also of tracing the relationship between that characterization and contemporaneous scholarly work. This is a necessary prelude to any attempt to reformulate the content of the negligence standard in a Restatement (Third), and I think that Gilles' work will prove to be exceptionally helpful in that regard. Given the limited space I have available for my own comments, however, I …

On Determining Negligence: Hand Formula Balancing, The Reasonable Person Standard, And The Jury, Stephen G. Gilles

Vanderbilt Law Review

trial practice ensure that the operational meaning of negligence is largely determined by juries in particular cases, rather than by the doctrines stated in appellate decisions (and restated in Restatements of Torts). Even if these practices are misguided, it is clear that no Restatement could repudiate them without drastically departing from the American Law Institute's ("ALI") traditional position that Restatements are predominantly positive and only incrementally normative.

On the other hand, the conception of negligence articulated in the Restatement (First) of Torts ("Restatement (First)")--which was carried over virtually unchanged into the Restatement (Second) of Torts ("Restatement (Second)"), and hence has …

The Theory Of Enterprise Liability And Common Law Strict Liability, Gregory C. Keating

Vanderbilt Law Review

The fundamental claim that the Restatement (Third) of Torts: General Principles makes about strict liability is striking and bold. The Restatement (Third) claims that there are only special instances of strict liability. Negligence is a general legal principle, but strict liability is a set of particular doctrines. Curiously, however, the Restatement (Third) also takes the position that strict liability is a unified form of liability; it characterizes strict liability as liability for the characteristic risks of an activity.' So the Restatement (Third)'s claim that strict liability is a set of special cases seems to be a claim that strict liability …

Non-Utilitarian Negligence Norms And The Reasonable Person Standard, Steven Hetcher

Vanderbilt Law Review

Informal social norms play a crucial, albeit largely unheralded, role in negligence law. The reasonable person standard is an empty vessel that jurors fill with community norms. Jurors do this rather than performing cost-benefit analysis. The proposed Restatement (Third) of Torts: General Principles (Discussion Draft) ("Discussion Draft") misses both of these points. It dramatically overstates the role of utilitarian, cost-benefit analysis in the reasonable person standard, and it dramatically understates the role of non-utilitarian negligence norms in this standard. This Article will explore these twin failings of the Discussion Draft.

The negligence cause of action makes up the lion's share …

The Unexpected Persistence Of Negligence, 1980-2000, G. Edward White

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Tort Law in America: An Intellectual History, I made the general argument that the development of tort law in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries had been more influenced by ideas than previous scholars had suggested.' In making that argument I employed the terms "ideas" and "influence" at multiple levels of generality. The argument would perhaps have been better under- stood if I had more clearly particularized the specificity and generality of my claims about ideas as causal agents.

At the most specific level, I employed the term "ideas" to refer to particular doctrinal and policy proposals for tort law …

Corporate Risk Analysis: A Reckless Act?, W. Kip Viscusi

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Balancing of risk and cost lies at the heart of standard negligence tests and policy analysis approaches to government regulation. Notwithstanding the desirability of using a benefit-cost approach to assess the merits of safety measures, in many court cases juries appear to penalize corporations for having done a risk analysis in instances in which the company decided not to make a safety improvement after the analysis indicated the improvement was unwarranted Automobile accident cases provide the most prominent examples of such juror sanctions. This paper tests the effect of corporate risk analyses experimentally by using a sample of almost 500 …

Rights, Wrongs, And Recourse In The Law Of Torts, Benjamin C. Zipursky

Vanderbilt Law Review

Cardozo's opinion in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.' hinges on a stark assertion about rights and wrongs: A plaintiff has no right of action unless she can show "'a wrong' to herself; i.e., a violation of her own right." Cardozo himself made this principle the core of his analysis, yet scholars typically regard it as impenetrable, circular, vacuous, or, as Posner put it, "eloquent bluff." Small wonder, then, that readers typically turn to "reasonable foreseeability" as the essence of the case. Leading scholars treat Palsgraf as a proximate cause case, despite Cardozo's pronouncement that "W[the law of causation, remote …

No More Excuses: Refusing To Condone Mere Carelessness Or Negligence Under The "Excusable Neglect" Standard In Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 60(B)(1), Bree W. Weathersbee

Vanderbilt Law Review

Rule 60(b)' is an attempt to codify the equitable, common law practice of reforming judgments under special circumstances. The rule, inter alia, authorizes a court to relieve a party from a default judgment for "excusable neglect." This standard, however, is not defined in the rules, and courts have struggled with its meaning. Some circuits define the term liberally and often grant requests to vacate default judgments. Others adopt a strict interpretation and consistently refuse to vacate default judgments resulting from mere carelessness or negligence. Recently, in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, the Supreme Court clarified the …

Using Comparative Fault To Replace The All-Or-Nothing Lottery Imposed In Intentional Torts Suits In Which Both Plaintiff And Defendant Are At Fault, Gail D. Hollister

Vanderbilt Law Review

All or nothing. For years this idea of absolutes has been a hallmark of tort law despite the inequities it has caused. Plaintiffs must either win a total victory or suffer total defeat. In recent years courts and legislatures have begun to recognize the injustice of the all-or-nothing approach and to replace it with rules that permit partial recoveries that are more equitably tailored to the particular facts of each case.' The most dramatic example of this more equitable approach is the nearly universal rejection of contributory negligence in favor of comparative fault in negligence cases. Almost all jurisdictions, however, …

Exploring The Foreign Country Exception: Federal Tort Claims In Antarctica, David J. Bederman

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

On November 28, 1979, an Air New Zealand DC-10 aircraft carrying tourists bound for an expedition to Antarctica crashed into the side of Mount Erebus, the highest peak on the frozen continent. All aboard perished. Four years later, the families of some of the New Zealander skilled in the accident brought suit against the United States Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). They claimed that the negligence of the air traffic controllers at the United States scientific base at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, was the proximate cause of the crash.

This Article considers numerous aspects of this litigation and …

Case Digest, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND MEMBERS OF CLERGY OF VARIOUS DENOMINATIONS LACK STANDING TO CHALLENGE ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE VATICAN

--Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Reagan, 786 F.2d 194 (3d Cir.1986)

===========

EVEN THOUGH PROCEEDINGS IN THE FOREIGN FORUM MAY TAKE MORE TIME AND MAY YIELD A SMALLER RECOVERY THAN PROCEEDING IN THE UNITED STATES FORUM, THE FOREIGN FORUM MAY BE CONSIDERED AN ADEQUATE FORUM FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FORRUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE

--De Melo v. Lederle Laboratories, 801 F.2d 1058 (8th Cir. 1986)

===============

ASSERTION OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN CALIFORNIA OVER AN …

Punitive Damages: A Relic That Has Outlived Its Origins, James B. Sales, Kenneth B. Cole, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

The doctrine of punitive damages truly is an ancient legal concept that inexplicably has evaded commitment to the archives of history. Irrespective of the questionable validity of the doctrine at early common law, the simple fact remains that none of the historical justifications supports the punitive damage theory in today's tort reparations system. The quest to bestow increasing compensation no longer can justify punitive damage awards because actual damages currently recoverable compensate plaintiffs more than adequately for every conceivable element of physical, emotional, or imagined injury. The desire to inflict punishment, likewise, represents an insupportable basis for awarding quasi-criminal fines …

Case Digest, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Point of Final Loading and Routing is Place of Shipment for Purposes of Valuing Lost Cargo; Private Carrier's Both-to-Blame Clause is Enforceable---Allseas Maritime, S.A. v. M/V Mimosa, 574 F. Supp. 844 (S.D. Tex. 1983).

LAND-BASED NEGLIGENCE CAUSING AN AIRPLANE CRASH IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS FALLS WITHIN ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION--Miller v. United States, 18 Av. CAS. (CCH) 17,912 (11th Cir. 1984).

FREIGHT FORWARDER WHO BREACHES A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO HIS SHIPPER VIOLATES THE WIRE FRAUD STATUTE--United States v. Armand Ventura, 724 F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1983).

IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OBTAINED BY ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY IS DIFFERENT FROM IN REM JURISDICTION--Belcher Co. v. MIV …

Nonmutual Collateral Estoppel In Federal Tax Litigation, Samuel E. Long, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

First, the Note briefly traces the demise of the mutuality rule in nontax cases. Second, the Note discusses the cases examining the rule in tax disputes and argues that courts should not require mutuality as an absolute rule before collateral estoppel can apply.Finally, the Note proposes a framework within which courts should analyze nonmutual estoppel claims in federal tax cases...

This Note has argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Parklane Hosiery and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Starker v. United States have sounded the death knell for the mutuality rule in its final stronghold-federal tax litigation. Courts can apply …

On Product "Design Defects" And Their Actionability, John W. Wade

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article has tried to explain and discuss these developments, to evaluate them, to show their relationship to the general state of the law, and to make suggestions on how far they should affect its future development. At present, the question of "design defects" and the determination of when a product is actionable because of the nature of its design appears to be the most agitated and controversial question before the courts in the field of products liability. I hope that this Article can be of some help to the courts in seeking to develop the most suitable answer to …

Reconsidering Plaintiff's Fault In Product Liability Litigation: The Proposed Conscious Design Choice Exception, Vincent S. Walkowiak

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Uniform Comparative Fault Act, drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, was approved by the Commissioners in 1977. Dean John W. Wade was Chairman of the special committee that drafted the Act. The Act is a comparative-fault, rather than a comparative-negligence, act; it applies to all nonintentional torts, including products liability actions, whether they are based on negligence, breach of warranty,or strict tort liability. The Act seeks to address the problem of the relationship between the doctrines of comparative negligence and strict liability for products by permitting plaintiff's fault to effect a proportional reduction in …

Defining The Government's Duty Under The Federal Tort Claims Act, Thomas A. Varlan

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Recent Development traces the Supreme Court's development of the analogous private liability test and examines the recent cases applying this test. The Recent Development then analyzes the divergent approaches taken in these cases and attempts to determine when an actionable duty arises under the Act.

Unmasking The Test For Design Defect: From Negligence [To Warranty] To Strict Liability To Negligence, Sheila L. Birnbaum

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article will consider the problems engendered by imprecise judicial analysis of the notion of design defect. The central issues informing this investigation are as follows: (1) Can the notion of manufacturer fault or negligence be rationally eliminated in a design defect case? and (2) Should the term "unreasonably dangerous" be retained in the definition of defect in a design case, and if so, how should it be defined?

Recent Cases, Robert E. Banta, Oby T. Brewer, Iii, Cornelia A. Clark, I. Terry Currie, Douglas W. Ey, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

Constitutional Law-First Amendment-School Authorities May Prohibit High School Student's Distribution of Sex Questionnaire to Prevent Possible Psychological Harm to Other Students Robert Edward Banta

Plaintiff, editor of a high school publication,' brought suit in federal court seeking an order compelling defendant school officials to allow the student publication to distribute a sex questionnaire,to students in the high school and to publish the results. Plaintiff claimed that defendants had not shown that the planned distribution would disrupt school activities and that, therefore, defendants'prohibition of the questionnaire violated 42 U.S.C. § 19831 and the first and fourteenth amendments. Pointing to potential psychological …