Torts Commons^™

A Post-Spokeo Taxonomy Of Intangible Harms, Jackson Erpenbach

Michigan Law Review

Article III standing is a central requirement in federal litigation. The Supreme Court’s Spokeo decision marked a significant development in the doctrine, dividing the concrete injury-in-fact requirement into two subsets: tangible and intangible harms. While tangible harms are easily cognizable, plaintiffs alleging intangible harms can face a perilous path to court. This raises particular concern for the system of federal consumer protection laws where enforcement relies on consumers vindicating their own rights by filing suit when companies violate federal law. These plaintiffs must often allege intangible harms arising out of their statutorily guaranteed rights. This Note demonstrates that Spokeo’s …

No More Chances For Lost Chances: A Weinribian Response To Weinrib, Nayha Acharya

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Sometimes, patients who were negligently misdiagnosed by their doctors are unable to receive any compensation through tort litigation. This has led to a perception of unfairness, igniting arguments in favour of what is known as the “loss of chance” doctrine. Under this doctrine, patients would be able to claim damages for the lost chances of recovery that they suffered due to negligent misdiagnoses. British and Canadian courts have rejected this doctrine in the medical negligence context on the basis that it does not cohere with tort law principles of injury compensation. Professor Ernest Weinrib, in “Causal Uncertainty” (2016) 36:1 Oxford …

Nudges And Norms In Multidistrict Litigation: A Response To Engstrom, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

On paper, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply equally to billion-dollar opioid allegations and small-stakes claims for $75,000.01. In practice, however, judges and attorneys in high-stakes multidistrict proceedings like those over opioids have invented a smattering of procedures that you’ll never find indexed in the Federal Rules: plaintiff fact sheets, short form complaints, science days, bellwether trials, census orders, inactive dockets, and Lone Pine orders to name but a few. In a world where settlement is the prevailing currency, norms take root. But as norms blossom, the stabilizing features of the federal rules—balance, predictability, and structural protections—can wither. As …

The Role Of Fault In § 1983 Municipal Liability, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, local governments are not vicariously liable for constitutional violations committed by their employees. Those governments, however, are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations committed by "policymaking" officials. In the face of these two principles, courts have struggled with cases in which an underling commits a constitutional violation and the claim of municipal liability is based on a policymaker's failure to prevent it. The government can be liable in these "indirect-effect" cases for a policymaker's "deliberate indifference" to safeguarding constitutional rights, a standard that demands an even greater showing of culpability than …

Crashworthy Code, Bryan H. Choi

Publications

Code crashes. Yet for decades, software failures have escaped scrutiny for tort liability. Those halcyon days are numbered: self-driving cars, delivery drones, networked medical devices, and other cyber-physical systems have rekindled interest in understanding how tort law will apply when software errors lead to loss of life or limb.

Even after all this time, however, no consensus has emerged. Many feel strongly that victims should not bear financial responsibility for decisions that are entirely automated, while others fear that cyber-physical manufacturers must be shielded from crushing legal costs if we want such companies to exist at all. Some insist the …

The Cost Of Changing Our Minds, Nita A. Farahany

Faculty Scholarship

The neuroscience revolution poses profound challenges to the doctrine of avoidable consequences in tort law and exposes deep theoretical riddles about the right to our own mental experiences and memories. To address this profound question, this Article begins with a deceptively simple principle of tort law: A victim of tortious wrongdoing by another is held responsible for mitigating her own physical injuries. This Article addresses whether that same doctrine should require a tort victim to likewise mitigate her emotional injuries. The answer to that question is of great and increasing importance because it goes to the heart of how society …

Lessons From Literal Crashes For Code, Margot Kaminski

Publications

No abstract provided.

Dust In The Wind: Revisiting Georgia’S Refusal To Extend Liability To Employers In Take-Home Asbestos Litigation, Phillips Workman

Georgia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Does Multidistrict Litigation Deny Plaintiffs Due Process?, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Facebook V. Sullivan: Public Figures And Newsworthiness In Online Speech, Thomas E. Kadri, Kate Klonick

Scholarly Works

In the United States, there are now two systems to adjudicate disputes about harmful speech. The first is older and more established: the legal system in which judges apply constitutional law to limit tort claims alleging injuries caused by speech. The second is newer and less familiar: the content-moderation system in which platforms like Facebook implement the rules that govern online speech. These platforms are not bound by the First Amendment. But, as it turns out, they rely on many of the tools used by courts to resolve tensions between regulating harmful speech and preserving free expression—particularly the entangled concepts …

Technological Solutions To Human Error And How They Can Kill You: Understanding The Boeing 737 Max Products Liability Litigation, W. Bradley Wendel

Journal of Air Law and Commerce

No abstract provided.

Space, The Final Frontier For Negligence Suits—Why Commercial Space Operators Should Be Liable For Personal Injuries To Space Flight Participants, Andrea Reed

Journal of Air Law and Commerce

The commercial space transportation industry is rapidly approaching the first launches of paying passengers into space—a technological and legal milestone for the maturing sector. Unfortunately, the liability regime governing the relationship between commercial space operators and spaceflight participants inadequately protects private passengers’ safety and financial interests. As part of the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 (CSLCA), Congress enacted negligence waiver and informed consent requirements that shift almost all legal liability onto spaceflight participants for death or bodily injury caused by an operator’s negligence. Private citizens should not bear the risk of these accidents.

This Comment argues that Congress …

Intellectual Property Harms: A Paradigm For The Twenty-First Century, Jessica Silbey

Faculty Scholarship

This short essay is part of a larger book project that investigates how contemporary intellectual property debates, especially in the digital age, are taking place over less familiar terrain: fundamental rights and values. Its argument draws from the diverse, personal accounts of interviews from everyday creators and innovators and focuses on descriptions of harms and, as some say “abuses,” they suffer within their practicing communities. The harms are not described are the usual harms that intellectual property law is understood to prevent. Typically, intellectual property injuries are conceived in individual terms and as economic injuries. An infringer is a thief. …