Torts Commons^™

I'Ve Got A Beef With You: The Increased Liability Of Animal Producers In Kentucky After The Repudiation Of The Impact Rule, Zachary F. Mattioni

Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law

No abstract provided.

“Danger Is My Business”: The Right To Manufacture Unsafe Products, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

While no one would dispute that safety is a desirable objective, it may not always be an absolute priority. Rather, in some cases, other societal interests such as personal autonomy, consumer choice, product cost, and performance may trump legitimate safety goals. This is reflected in some of the doctrines and defenses that have evolved to protect the producers of unsafe products against tort liability. Some of these doctrines, such as those determining liability for the producers of optional safety equipment, inherently dangerous products, products with obvious hazards, and prescription drugs and medical devices, are part of the law of products …

The Role Of Litigation In The Fight Against Prescription Drug Abuse, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Prescription drug abuse problems have prompted a number of responses by both drug users (and abusers) and by various federal and state government agencies.

Part I of this Article examines the impressive array of liability theories that individual litigants have relied upon in their lawsuits against Purdue. These theories include: negligence; strict products liability, including design defect and inadequate warning claims; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; violation of state consumer protection statutes; negligent marketing; fraudulent misrepresentation; civil conspiracy; and "malicious conduct." Purdue, the company that developed OxyContin, has pursued an aggressive "no settlement" policy and has chosen to …

"The Disorderly Conduct Of Words": Civil Liability For Injuries Caused By The Dissemination Of False Or Inaccurate Information, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article is concerned with the potential liability of those who disseminate false or inaccurate information that causes physical injury or property damage to those who rely upon it. However, this Article will not address the question of whether those who advocate or depict violence or other antisocial activities should also be subject to liability. For the most part, such publications are considered to be a form of constitutionally protected speech, even when they directly cause physical harm to others. Although the issue of liability for the publication of factually inaccurate information is narrower in scope than liability for the …

Survey Of Damages Measures Recognized In Negligence Cases Involving Animals, Alison M. Rowe

Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law

No abstract provided.

Justice Holmes's Bad Man And The Depleted Purposes Of Punitive Damages, Jill Wieber Lens

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

"What The Frack?" Why Hydraulic Fracturing Is Abnormally Dangerous And Whether Courts Should Allow Strict Liability Causes Of Action, Neal J. Manor

Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law

No abstract provided.

"Fasten Your Seat Belt, Orville!": Exploring The Relationship Between State-Of-The-Art, Technological And Commercial Feasibility, And The Restatement'S Reasonable Alternative Design Requirement, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article begins by examining some of the case law involving the state-of-the-art concept and finds that it is principally concerned with technological feasibility. It also concludes that most cases do not treat state-of-the-art as conclusive on the design defect issue; rather, they merely consider it one of several factors that the fact finder may take into account when deciding whether a product's design is defective or not. Part II is concerned with technological development. This part examines two basic patterns of technological development and provides a number of historical examples for each. The first is a linear pattern, exemplified …

Risky Business: Liability Of Product Sellers Who Offer Safety Devices As Optional Equipment, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article examines the question of whether (or when) product sellers should be allowed to offer optional safety equipment without fear of being held strictly liable for selling a defectively designed product. Part II of this Article examines several approaches to risk-bearing. At one end of the spectrum, the principle of personal autonomy dictates that consumers should decide how much risk they wish to accept. On the other hand, products liability law assumes that if consumers are allowed to subject themselves to greater risk, producers will be quick to take advantage of their inability to make rational decisions about what …

The Case Against Preemption: Vaccines & Uncertainty, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article begins with a brief recap of the state of current preemption doctrine and how it governs the interaction of federal regulation of product manufacturers and state tort actions related to the actions of those manufacturers. Second, the article provides observations on how that doctrine might apply to vaccine injury litigation. Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, Inc. involves the preemptive scope of the Vaccine Act and the unique compensation system Congress created to respond to vaccine injuries. Bruesewitz was decided on February 22, 2011, and held that design defect claims are expressly preempted by the Vaccine Act. This article endeavors …

Equestrian Helmet Laws And Their Effect On Equestrian Liability, Litany Webster

Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law

No abstract provided.

Green V. Alpharma, Inc.: The Causal Connection Between The Use Of Growth Hormones In Chicken Feed And Cancer And Its Impact On The Agricultural Industry, Sunni R. Harris

Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law

No abstract provided.

A Post-Impact Fear Of Pre-Impact Fright, Meg Ellen Phillips

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Loss Of Parental Consortium: Why Kentucky Should Re-Recognize The Claim Outside The Wrongful Death Context, Collin D. Schueler

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The term "consortium" has been defined as "[t]he benefits that one person . . . is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, [and] financial support." Under Kentucky law, "[e]ither a wife or husband may recover damages against a third person for loss of consortium, resulting from a negligent or wrongful act of such third person.” Furthermore, "[in] a wrongful death action in which the decedent was a minor child, the surviving parent, or parents, may recover for loss of affection and companionship that would have been derived from such child during its minority…” In Giuliani v. …

The Impact Of Wyeth V. Levine On Fda Regulation Of Prescription Drugs, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

On March 4, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided Wyeth v. Levine. In that case, the Court concluded that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim against the makers of the drug Phenergan was not impliedly preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). In doing so, the Court rejected the argument of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that tort claims of this nature stand as an obstacle to federal regulatory objectives. This article evaluates the Court's opinion in Wyeth and examines that decision's impact on subsequent litigation in the area of prescription drug labeling. In …

On Restating Products Liability Preemption, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article provides a brief explanation of the state of preemption doctrine and explains how the Court altered, quite dramatically, its treatment of preemption of common law tort actions in the last two decades. The Court's almost exclusive focus on the interpretation of express preemption provisions, which never specifically address common law tort claims one way or the other, turned "traditional" preemption analysis of common law tort claims on its head. The Court then, almost as suddenly, signaled a retreat from the emphasis on express preemption analysis and returned, awkwardly, to implied preemption doctrine. The Court has only recently begun …

Product Liability's Parallel Universe: Fault-Based Liability Theories And Modern Products Liability Law, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Strict liability has always been the heart and soul of American products liability law. As early as 1963, Justice Roger Traynor in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. stated that "[a] manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it will be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being." Shortly thereafter, the drafters of section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts made it clear that the exercise of due care would not shield sellers from liability when their products caused injury. …

The Pending Farmers' Market Fiasco: Small-Time Farmers, Part-Time Shoppers, And A Big-Time Problem, Brandon Baird

Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law

No abstract provided.

“There's Danger Here, Cherie!”: Liability For The Promotion And Marketing Of Drugs And Medical Devices For Off-Label Uses, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Physicians often prescribe prescription drugs and other medications for uses that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), and such "off label" prescription is widely accepted within the medical community as a legitimate form of treatment. However, the federal government discourages off-label prescription and use in various ways. For example, the FDA restricts the dissemination of information by drug companies about potential off-label therapies. In addition, federally funded health insurance programs such as Medicaid do not reimburse health care providers for off-label uses. Because drug companies make large profits from off-label prescriptions, they are often tempted to …

Providing A Safe Harbor For Those Who Play By The Rules: The Case For A Strong Regulatory Compliance Defense, Richard C. Ausness, H. Lee Barfield, David A. King, Joshua R. Denton, Stephen J. Jasper

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

On September 25, 2003, a fire broke out at the National Health Care (NHC) nursing home facility in Nashville, Tennessee, causing sixteen deaths and a number of injuries from smoke inhalation. Thirty-two victims subsequently filed suit against the nursing home, alleging that NHC was negligent for failing to install sprinklers in its facility. This claim was made notwithstanding the fact that applicable federal, state, and local safety regulations did not require the installation of sprinklers in this particular type of building, and notwithstanding that the NHC facility had been inspected by state fire inspectors just months before the fire and …

The Battle Over Implied Preemption: Products Liability And The Fda, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

A mere five years ago, the Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") began, for the first time in its 100-year history, to take the position that its prescription drug labeling regulations defeated the ability of injured plaintiffs to pursue common law tort claims based on the adequacy of the labeling. This position, radical to many and rational to others, places federal preemption of prescription drug labeling actions directly in the center of the debate over the proper roles of federal regulation and state tort laws in promoting product safety. The U.S. Supreme Court has contributed to this debate with several …

Conspiracy Theories: Is There A Place For Civil Conspiracy In Products Liability Litigation?, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

A civil conspiracy is a group of two or more persons acting together to achieve an unlawful objective or to achieve a lawful objective by unlawful or criminal means. During the past two decades, plaintiffs have brought numerous civil conspiracy claims against product manufacturers. The defendants in these cases have included manufacturers or producers of tobacco products, asbestos, pharmaceuticals, lead-based paint, multi-rim truck wheels, and gasoline additives. Surprisingly, less than half of the civil conspiracy claims have made it to trial. This unimpressive success rate suggests that courts are not very receptive to civil conspiracy claims even when there is …

The Economic Torts And English Law: An Uncertain Future, Hazel Carty

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Teaching Economic Torts, Jay Feinman

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

"Deep" Impact: Can A Tort Theory Of Deepening Insolvency Survive In The "Options Backdating" Era?, Phillip G. Lewis

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Solution To The Economic Loss Doctrine Confusion: The Disappointed Expectations Test, Mackenzie Mayes Walter

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Economic Loss Rule And Missed Opportunities: How To Keep Kentucky From Drowning In A Sea Of Tort, Matthew J. Pujol

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Welding Fume Case And The Preemptive Effect Of Osha’S Hazcom Standard On Common Law Failure-To-Warn Claims, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The Occupational Health and Safety Act (the OSH Act) affects more than ninety million workers in the United States. The OSH Act is administered by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), which promulgates health and safety standards for the workplace. Although OSHA standards do not regulate product manufacturers directly, they may affect liability when manufacturers are sued by workers who are injured by allegedly defective products provided by their employers. With increasing frequency, manufacturers are contending that the OSH Act or OSHA standards preempt these claims. In particular, manufacturers argue that the Hazard Communication Standard (HazCom Standard) should preempt …

“After You, My Dear Alphonse!”: Should The Courts Defer To The Fda’S New Interpretation Of § 360k(A) Of The Medical Device Amendments?, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Under the provisions of the Medical Device Amendments (MDA) to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act certain medical devices are subject to premarket approval of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Section 360k(a) of the MDA provides that states may not establish “any requirement” which relates to safety or effectiveness of a medical device and "which is different from, or in addition to" any requirement imposed by the FDA. Until recently, the FDA maintained that § 360k(a) did not preempt most common law tort claims; however, in recent amici briefs, the FDA has aggressively asserted that most, if not all, …

Walking The Line Between Contract And Tort In Construction Disputes: Assessing The Use Of Negligent Misrepresentation To Recover Economic Loss After Presnell, Steven M. Henderson

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.