Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Legal Remedies
When Food Is A Weapon: Parental Liability For Food Allergy Bullying, D'Andra Millsap Shu
When Food Is A Weapon: Parental Liability For Food Allergy Bullying, D'Andra Millsap Shu
Marquette Law Review
Food allergies in children are rising at an alarming pace. Increasingly, these children face an added threat: bullies targeting them because of their allergies. This bullying can take a life-threatening turn when the bully exposes the victim to the allergen. This Article is the first major legal analysis of food allergy bullying. It explores the legal system’s failure to adequately address the problem of food allergy bullying and makes the case for focusing on the potential tort liability of the bully’s parents. Parents who become aware of their child’s bullying behavior and fail to take adequate steps to stop it …
Renovations Needed: The Fda's Floor/Ceiling Framework, Preemption, And The Opioid Epidemic, Michael R. Abrams
Renovations Needed: The Fda's Floor/Ceiling Framework, Preemption, And The Opioid Epidemic, Michael R. Abrams
Michigan Law Review
The FDA’s regulatory framework for pharmaceuticals uses a “floor/ceiling” model: administrative rules set a “floor” of minimum safety, while state tort liability sets a “ceiling” of maximum protection. This model emphasizes premarket scrutiny but largely relies on the state common law “ceiling” to police the postapproval drug market. As the Supreme Court increasingly holds state tort law preempted by federal administrative standards, the FDA’s framework becomes increasingly imbalanced. In the face of a historic prescription medication overdose crisis, the Opioid Epidemic, this imbalance allows the pharmaceutical industry to avoid internalizing the public health costs of their opioid products. This Note …
Liability Cure-All For Insidious Disease Claims, Susan Frankewich
Liability Cure-All For Insidious Disease Claims, Susan Frankewich
Pepperdine Law Review
Recent decisions handed down in various circuits have created virtual chaos in predicting the liability and damage amounts of insidious disease claims. At least three substantially divergent theories have been adopted to impute liability to the manufacturers of the disease catalysts. Additionally, a new trust fund concept has been used on a limited basis to reconcile differences in court decisions. The trust fund approach is relatively flexible and simple to apply in apportioning damages for insidious disease claims. The author examines and analyzes these three liability theories. In conclusion, the adoption of the trust fund concept is recommended.
Radiation Injuries And Statistics: The Need For A New Approach To Injury Litigation, Samuel D. Estep
Radiation Injuries And Statistics: The Need For A New Approach To Injury Litigation, Samuel D. Estep
Michigan Law Review
The emphasis given by the mass media of communication to some of the dramatic problems arising from the use of nuclear energy unfortunately has diverted attention from some of the matters about which something can be done by lawyers, administrators, and legislators without the necessity of complicated international negotiations between various parties to the "Cold War." The headlines leave the uninformed, and perhaps often also the informed, public with the impression that even for radiation injuries the important problems all deal with such questions as: (1) Will only a few or many millions of people survive an all-out nuclear war? …