Law Commons^™

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 …

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, …

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 …

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 …

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?

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.

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 …

Recent Cases, Gregg N. Gimsley

Vanderbilt Law Review

The instant decision is of major importance because it clearly defines a more liberal standard for aiding and abetting under section 10(b), reads a requirement of due care by accountants into section 17(a), and serves as an additional warning to the accounting profession of its expanding responsibilities in the field of securities regulation. By establishing negligence, duty to disclose, and causal connection, rather than actual knowledge, substantial assistance,and reliance, as the major elements of aiding and abetting a violation of Rule 10b-5, the Seventh Circuit has given this cause of action the broadest interpretation to date. Nothing precluded this interpretation …

Evidence Of Producer's Due Care In A Products Liability Action, Robert A. Bernstein

Vanderbilt Law Review

In a products liability case, evidence of defendant's due care in the manufacturing or processing operation can be a potent and sometimes critical factor in the decision of a judge or jury.' The question remains,however, whether such evidence is properly admissible under contemporary versions of the implied warranty and strict liability theories that have fashioned the recent revolution in consumer product law. The leading chronicler of the revolution, Dean Prosser, has noted the practical importance of the issue and has concluded, apparently without reservation, that in the ordinary case evidence of the defendant's due care is immaterial. The reasoning is …

Defective Products: Abnormal Use, Contributory Negligence, And Assumption Of Risk, Dix W. Noel

Vanderbilt Law Review

This article will attempt to analyze these three general kinds of conduct on the part of the plaintiff, giving attention to basic tort principles and to traditional distinctions. Special emphasis will be placed on the functions of court and jury in resolving questions posed by situations in which injury is caused both by a defective product and by the plaintiff's handling of that product. It will be shown that a court's choice of policy factors as a basis for strict liability may affect considerably its final decision.

Products Liability-Drugs And Cosmetics, Page Keeton

Vanderbilt Law Review

Much has been written by judges and scholars about abrogation of both the requirement of privity for recovery on warranty theories and the prerequisite of a finding of negligence for recovery on a tort theory against manufacturers and other sellers of all kinds of products.' As a consequence of this abrogation, the courts in some states have completed the change-over from a fault to a strict liability theory of recovery for harm resulting from unintended and latent dangerous conditions of products. Moreover, removal of initial restrictions limiting strict liability to users and consumers is proceeding apace, and the logical extension …

Limitations On Liability For Economic Loss Caused By Negligence: A Pragmatic Appraisal, Fleming James, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

Even if liability for indirect economic consequences of negligence may in some cases be too broad and open-ended to be endured, care should be taken to see whether that is true in all types of situations; if it is not true, one must examine whether a rule may be fashioned to separate the wheat from the chaff. In this discussion it has been assumed that if the pragmatic consideration has any validity, it is in the field of indirect economic loss rather than that of physical damage. As one commentator put it, "only a limited amount of physical damage can …

Failure To Inform As Medical Malpractice, Stephen L. Edwards

Vanderbilt Law Review

It has long been recognized in American law that a proper patient-physician relationship is founded upon the technical competency of the physician. Before the advent of cases dealing with informed consent, a patient who had given his consent to proposed treatment could recover for injuries only when the physician had acted incompetently in the administration of the treatment. Within the past fifteen years, however, the courts have recognized that the maintenance of a proper patient-physician relationship depends not only upon the technical competency of the physician, but also upon the presence of effective communication between the two parties. Therefore, recent …

Judicial Creation Of Direct Actions Against Automobile Liability Insurers: Shingleton V. Bussey, Jason G. Reynolds

Vanderbilt Law Review

Elizabeth R. Bussey commenced a negligence action in a Florida state trial court against Frances R.B. Shingleton for damages sustained in an automobile mishap. The accident itself was a rather ordinary rear-end collision. Out of the ordinary, however, was the fact that the plaintiff joined as a party defendant Shingleton's liability insurer, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. The trial judge, following the insurance policy's non-joinder provisions' and the weight of authority in Florida and elsewhere, granted Nationwide's motion that it be dismissed as a party defendant. Plaintiff appealed this order to the Florida District Court of Appeal on the theory that, …

Trespassing Children: A Study In Expanding Liability, R. Neal Batson

Vanderbilt Law Review

When confronted with a case involving a child plaintiff, attorneys and the courts should recognize that the doctrine of attractive nuisance is only one of several theories on which the plaintiff may proceed against a landowner. The status of a plaintiff should first be determined. If the child is a trespasser, then either the constant trespasser theory, the known trespasser theory, or the doctrine of attractive nuisance may be applicable. It is possible, however, that the court may reject any one or all of these theories and decide the particular case under the general negligence principles of foreseeability of harm …

Landowner's Negligence Liability To Persons Entering As A Matter Of Right Or Under A Privilege Of Private Necessity, Donald W. Fish

Vanderbilt Law Review

In modem tort law, the liability of occupiers of land for their negligence depends in the first instance upon the status of the plaintiff upon the premises. This status generally determines the level of duty which the occupier owes him, and a vast body of case law has developed dealing with the many aspects of the question.Of the myriad classes of persons to whom some duty of care maybe owed by an occupier, perhaps those who enter the premises by virtue of a legal right, and irrespective of the consent of the occupier, present the most elusive problems in analysis. …

Torts -- 1964 Tennessee Survey, Dix W. Noel

Vanderbilt Law Review

As usual, the Tennessee appellate courts decided a considerable number of tort cases last year, covering a wide variety of problems.There were no striking new developments. In fact, the two decisions which were awaited by the profession with the greatest interest, Kyker v. General Motors Corporation' and Texas Tunneling Co. v. City of Chattanooga, tend to slow down some modem developments. In the Kyker case, it was indicated that manufacturers are not yet strictly liable in Tennessee, at least on warranty grounds, without privity of contract. In the Texas Tunneling case, a federal court undertaking to apply Tennessee law placed …