Torts Commons^™

Instrumental And Noninstrumental Theories Of Tort Law, Richard A. Posner

Indiana Law Journal

American Association of Law Schools Torts & Compensation Systems Panel

Accidental Suicide Pacts And Creditor Collective Action Problems: The Mortgage Mess, The Deadweight Loss, And How To Get The Value Back, Robert C. Hockett

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Sustained economic recovery will remain elusive in America, post-crash, until principal is reduced on some 10-13 million underwater home mortgage loans across the nation. Yet in the case of privately securitized loans, these write-downs are all but impossible to carry out on the requisite scale because bubble-era securitization contracts, which now effectively function as suicide pacts among bondholders, would require collective action by millions of geographically dispersed passive investors in order to authorize write-downs or sales out of securitization trusts. The solution, this article suggests, is for state and municipal governments to use their eminent domain powers to buy up …

Norfolk’S Flooding Adaptation Measures: Taking Lawful Precautions Or ‘Takings’ Lawsuits?, Emilie A. Whitehurst

Virginia Coastal Policy Center

No abstract provided.

Overview Of A City’S Tort Liability Duties To Maintain And Protect Local Government Services From Sea Level Rise: Poquoson Case Study, Alex Horning

Virginia Coastal Policy Center

No abstract provided.

The Virginia Supreme Court’S 2012 Livingston Case: Localities And The Risk Of “Takings” Claims For Failure To Properly Maintain Flood Control Structures, Daniel Doty, Chris Olcott

Virginia Coastal Policy Center

No abstract provided.

“Takings” Liability For Vacating Roads In Flood-Prone Areas: Poquoson Case Study, Kelci Block

Virginia Coastal Policy Center

No abstract provided.

Battle For Disclosure Tort, Jared A. Wilkerson

W&M Law Student Publications

Legal scholars guided the creation and development of privacy torts, including what would become known as the disclosure tort, for about seventy-five years (1890-1965), a period in which most states came to recognize a common law or statutory right to privacy. Since then, scholarly attempts to curb or modify the tort have yielded little. This Article-beginning with the formalism-realism debate won by Brandeis, Pound, and Prosser and ending with modern experts--shows that notwithstanding enormous efforts by contemporary legal academics, would-be reformers of the disclosure tort have not budged it since Prosser's Restatement (Second). The Article presents both a lesson and …

Negligence, Causation, And Incentives For Care, Keith N. Hylton, Haizhen Lin

Faculty Scholarship

We present a new model of negligence and causation and examine the influence of the negligence test, in the presence of intervening causation, on the level of care. In this model, the injurer's decision to take care reduces the likelihood of an accident only in the event that some nondeterministic intervention occurs. The effects of the negligence test depend on the information available to the court, and the manner in which the test is implemented. The key effect of the negligence test, in the presence of intervening causation, is to induce actors to take into account the distribution of the …

Is The Doctor In? The Contemptible Condition Of Immigrant Detainee Healthcare In The U.S. And The Need For A Constitutional Remedy, Kate Bowles

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Are Risks Wrong?, Anthony J. Sebok

Online Publications

In The Moral Significance of Risking, John Oberdiek offers a theory of why risk imposition is prima facie wrong. Oberdiek admits that his argument will only be persuasive if he applies it to risk imposition in its purest form (what he calls “risking”). Risking’s moral significance – if it has any – must be based on the imposition of the risk of harm, and not the harm itself. In other words, if risking is wrong, it shouldn’t matter in our evaluation of it that the risk of injury never ripened into an injury. Thus, second-order effects of risking on …

Safeway Stores, Inc. V. Nest-Kart: The Culmination Of Li V. Yellow Cab Co., David R. Haglund

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Another Citadel Has Fallen - This Time The Plaintiff's. California Applies Comparative Negligence To Strict Products Liability, Thomas G. Gehring

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Punitive Damages In Product Liability Cases , Mark P. Robinson Jr., Gerald H.B. Kane Jr.

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Allocation Of Responsibility After American Motorcycle Association V. Superior Court, Erwin E. Adler

Pepperdine Law Review

In its landmark case of Li v. Yellow Cab Co., the California Supreme Court judicially adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence in an action involving a plaintiff and a single defendant. The court in Li specifically avoided making any decision concerning the numerous issues which would be involved in a multi-party action: the relationship of multiple defendants with one another, the right of one defendant to join others for the purpose of sharing payment of the judgment, the respective responsibilities of such parties for the judgment (including those insolvent, partially solvent or possessing an immunity), and the procedure for the …

The End Of An Era: The Supreme Court (Finally) Butts Out Of Punitive Damages For Good, Jim Gash

Florida Law Review

Part I of this Article chronicles and summarizes the development of the Supreme Court’s punitive damages jurisprudence. Over the past two decades, the Court has increasingly constitutionalized various aspects of punitive damages jurisprudence, using both procedural and substantive due process rationales. A set of three “guideposts” has emerged that courts are to use in determining whether a punitive damages award runs afoul of constitutional guarantees.

Part II outlines the multiple punishments problem that is currently facing courts throughout the country and provides a brief overview of the various failed attempts and current proposals to remedy this problem.

Part III provides …

Secure My Data Or Pay The Price: Consumer Remedy For The Negligent Enablement Of Data Breach, John A. Fisher

William & Mary Business Law Review

Every time we swipe our debit cards, pay our bills online, or sign up for a service like Netflix, we are entrusting important identifying information to the companies with which we do business. Most of the time, those companies take seriously the obligation to protect our data and prevent it from falling into the hands of those who would use it to benefit themselves at our expense. Some companies, however, fail to do enough to meet that burden, making it easier for identity thieves to inflict personal and financial injury on consumers. To date, our legal system has essentially denied …

Extending The Liability Of Insurers For Bad Faith Acts: Royal Globe Insurance Company V. Superior Court, Michael Tancredi

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Truman V. Thomas: The Rise Of Informed Refusal, Thomas M. O'Neil

Pepperdine Law Review

Truman v. Thomas addresses the issue of whether or not a physician must inform a patient of the possible consequences of her refusal to submit to a diagnostic test. The California Supreme Court has determined that a physician has such a duty, and the author provides an examination of this decision and a view of previous case law in the area of informed consent. Although increasing the physician's burden of disclosure, the decision can be seen as a continuation of the trend of cases allowing patients more control over the care of their own bodies.

California Expands Tort Liability Under The Novel Market Share Theory: Sindell V. Abbott Laboratories, N. Denise Taylor

Pepperdine Law Review

The California Supreme Court, in the novel and unprecedented case of Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, eliminated the plaintiffs burden of identification of a negligent party, and thus the causation requirement, in a multiple party tort action. In the course of this decision, the court adopted the "market share" theory of liability which dictated in Sindell that nonidentifiable defendant-manufacturers of the generic drug DES would be liable for the damages in proportion to their share of business in the market. The author thoroughly examines various theories of recovery, such as "alternative liability," "concert of action" and "enterprise liability," which the court …

Molien V. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals: Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress, Michael P. Messina

Pepperdine Law Review

In Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the California Supreme Court recognized that the interest in freedom from negligent infliction of mental distress is a protectable interest, and that an accompanying physical injury need not exist in order to recover damages. The author presents a discussion of the history and policies behind the right to recover from negligently inflicted emotional distress. The author also discusses and analyzes the court's opinion in Molien and agrees with the court that the fears of opening the floodgate of litigation which before Molien precluded recovery, was arbitrary. Finally, the author concludes that the holding is …

World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation V. Woodson: Minimum Contacts In A Modern World, Craig H. Millet

Pepperdine Law Review

World Wide Volkswagen Corporation v. Woodson considers the problem of modifying in personam jurisdiction to comply with the changing nature of the American economy. Several lower courts had adjusted the "minimum contacts" test of International Shoe Co. v. Washington to allow for the differences in modern economic lifestyle, but a uniformity amongst the various approaches was lacking. Rather than synthesize a contemporary test for the assertion of in personam jurisdiction, the World- Wide Court chose to place state sovereignty above modern commercial realities and adhere to a more rigid application of the minimum contacts analysis. The author takes issue with …

Police Shootings - Administrative Law As A Method Of Control Over Police: Peterson V. City Of Long Beach, James Wright

Pepperdine Law Review

Professor Kenneth Davis has long advocated that police manuals should be viewed as interpretative administrative rules, which would guide police in their daily activities. He argued that police departments should not fear adopting interpretative rules because such rules would not be binding; therefore, the department would not be subject to tort liability if an officer violated such a rule. In Peterson v. City of Long Beach, a police officer violated the police manual when he shot and killed a non-violent fleeing suspect. The California Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Frank Newman, cited Professor Davis and his call for …

Corporate Homicide: The Stark Realities Of Artificial Beings And Legal Fictions , Douglas S. Anderson

Pepperdine Law Review

In the aftermath of one of the most highly publicized trials in product liability annals-the celebrated Pinto case-the legal question raised by that litigation remains unresolved. Controversy continues as to whether a corporation should be convicted of homicide when it knowingly markets an unsafe product that results in death. Today the answer is a resounding "no", in light of state statutes defining homicide as the killing of one human being by another, difficulties in finding the requisite criminal intent; and the practical problems of placing a legal fiction behind bars. However, there are recent indications that these present obstacles to …

Punitive Damages And The Drunken Driver, William C. Cooper

Pepperdine Law Review

A discussion of the history and theory of punitive damages which results in advocating their application in a drunk driving context after giving due consideration to the pros and cons of such a sanction. An analysis of case law will reveal the underlying rationale that has motivated certain jurisdictions in applying this severe penal approach in an attempt to deter and curtail the senseless destruction on our nation's highways as well as exploring the impetus behind those other jurisdictions that do not utilize the remedy of punitive damages. The culminating focus is on California's position in this regard. Finally, there …

Aviation Litigation: Federal Preemption And The Creation Of A Federal Remedy As A Means To Extinguish The Current Confusion In The Courts, Deborah J. Olsen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hubbard V. Boelt: The Fireman's Rule Extended , Marty K. Deniston

Pepperdine Law Review

The California Supreme Court, in Hubbard v. Boelt, extended the reach of the fireman's rule to bar a suit brought by a policeman who was injured by the willful and wanton conduct of a speeding motor is while pursuing that motorist. This is an important development in tort law because, traditionally, the fireman's rule had only been applied to bar suits by firemen and policemen who were injured by the negligent conduct of another which was the cause of their presence at the scene. This author suggests that the majority's rationale underlying this extension was flawed because of the fundamental …

The Supreme Court Continues Its Journey Down The Ever Narrowing Paths Of Section 1983 And The Due Process Clause: An Analysis Of Parratt V. Taylor, Robert E. Palmer

Pepperdine Law Review

After nearly a century of quiet slumber, the Supreme Court awoke the sleeping giant. In the past two decades, 42 U.S.C. §1983 has evolved into a judicial Frankenstein monster. Unable to control the beast, the Court has attempted to restrict the creature's movements by unnecessarily limiting its constitutional source. If followed to its logical conclusion, the Court's narrow reading of the Constitution may ultimately demote all due process violations to state tort remedies. This note traces the legislative and judicial evolution of section 1983 as well as the statute's present interaction with the due process clause. The vehicle for this …

Fixing The Vaccine Act's Structural Moral Hazard, Brandon L. Boxler

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The article presents information on the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It discusses the U.S. Federal circuit case Hazlehurst v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., in which lawsuit against the defendant was filed by the plaintiff who sought claims against the liability of product to recover damages for alleged injuries which his son had received from vaccines. It also provides information on the structural moral hazard of the program which devolves it into a litigious adjudicatory process.

Constitutional Considerations: Government Responsibility And The Right Not To Be A Victim , Richard L. Aynes

Pepperdine Law Review

Within a democratic society, citizens are provided with certain rights and liberties. Among those rights and liberties is the right not to be a victim. In this article, the author examines and analyzes the growing concern for the protection of victims of crimes. Recent legislative enactments have been designed to alter the role of the victim in the civil and criminal justice systems by defining and implementing a series of "victims' rights." The author concludes by recognizing that one of the most important duties of government is to provide for the physical safety of those within its jurisdiction. To implement …

The Tort Foundation Of Duty Of Care And Business Judgment, Robert J. Rhee

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article corrects a misconception in corporation law – the belief that principles of tort law do not apply to the liability scheme of fiduciary duty. A board’s duty of care implies exposure to liability, but the business judgment rule precludes it. Tort law finds fault; corporation law excuses it. The conventional wisdom says that the tort analogy fails. This dismissal of tort prinicples is wrong. Although shareholder derivative suits and ordinary tort cases properly yield systemically antipodal outcomes, they are bound by a common analytical framework. The principles of board liability are rooted in tort doctrines governing duty, customs, …