Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Strict Liability For Defective Ideas In Publications, Andrew T. Bayman
Strict Liability For Defective Ideas In Publications, Andrew T. Bayman
Vanderbilt Law Review
In 1963 the Supreme Court of California revolutionized the law of torts by adopting the theory of strict liability in products liability cases.' The American Law Institute subsequently promulgated section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in 1965. Section 402A provides that the seller of a "product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous" may be held liable even though he has "exercised all possible care."' Today, nearly every state has adopted some form of section 402A.' Moreover, the list of modern products to which section 402A applies is virtually limitless. Yet, despite the unprecedented expansion of strict liability into …
Defamatory Opinions And The Restatement (Second) Of Torts, George C. Christie
Defamatory Opinions And The Restatement (Second) Of Torts, George C. Christie
Michigan Law Review
This Article will focus on one important aspect of the Institute's work: the question of whether opinion, including ridicule, can be an independent basis of an action for defamation. Before undertaking that inquiry, however, some basic concepts regarding defamatory opinions must be understood. First, a statement of opinion can, of course, often be reasonably construed to imply the existence of facts that would justify the opinion. If a direct statement of those facts would be defamatory, then the statement of an opinion that implies the existence of those false facts would be defamatory and capable of supporting an action for …
Tort Liability Of A University For Libelous Material In Student Publications, Michigan Law Review
Tort Liability Of A University For Libelous Material In Student Publications, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
While attention will occasionally be drawn to the impact of the New York Times privilege, this Note largely assumes that a defamed plaintiff is capable of overcoming the constitutional barriers imposed by New York Times and its progeny. In other words, the assumption is made that libelous statements either fall outside the constitutional privilege or that the plaintiff can demonstrate actual malice in the student authors or editors. The Note will analyze the traditional theories which may be invoked to establish the university's liability for defamatory material in student publications. First, a range of student newspaper-university relationships will be examined …