Torts Commons^™

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

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of Feres: An Unfairly Maligned Opinion, Paul F. Figley

American University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 1950 Feres v. United States decision held that when it enacted the Federal Tort Claims Act Congress did not intend to waive sovereign immunity for injuries to members of the military arising out of activity incident to their service. The Court’s decision was influenced by the long history of efforts to enact a general tort claims bill that would free Congress from the burden of processing claims against the government, as well as the case law, statutes, and procedures pertaining to service-members’ injuries prior to enactment of the Federal Tort Claims Act. This Article examines those influences …

Free Speech At What Cost?: Snyder V. Phelps And Speech-Based Tort Liability, Jeffrey Shulman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

It is always a hard case when fundamental interests collide, but the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. granted, 130 S. Ct. 1737 (2010), tilts doctrine too far in the direction of free speech, upsetting the Supreme Court’s careful weighing of interests that takes into account both the need for robust political debate and the need to protect private individuals from personal abuse. Where speech is directed at a private individual, especially one unwilling to hear but unable to escape the speaker’s message, the elements of the emotional distress claim more than …

The Conflict Between The Alien Tort Statute Litigation And Foreign Amnesty Laws, Carlee M. Hobbs

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Since the landmark case Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, foreign individuals have increasingly utilized the Alien Tort Statute to raise claims of human rights violations in the United States federal courts. Defendants, however, have alleged that principles of international comity necessitate dismissal of the suit when the foreign country in which the human rights violations occurred has granted defendants amnesty. While the doctrine of international comity permits dismissal if the case requires a federal court to adjudicate the internal affairs of a foreign country, the Supreme Court held, in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, that the Alien Tort Statue grants U.S. courts jurisdiction over …

The Easy Case For Products Liability: A Response To Polinsky & Shavell, Benjamin C. Zipursky, John C.P. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

In their article “The Uneasy Case for Product Liability,” Professors Polinsky and Shavell assert the extraordinary claim that there should be no tort liability - none at all - for injuries caused by widely-sold products. In particular, they claim to have found convincing evidence that the threat of tort liability creates no additional incentives to safety beyond those already provided by regulatory agencies and market forces, and that tort compensation adds little or no benefit to injury victims beyond the compensation already provided by various forms of insurance. In this response, we explain that, even on its own narrow terms, …

Damned For Their Judgment: The Tort Liability Of Standard Development Organizations, Robert H. Heidt

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Medical Malpractice Liability Crisis Or Patient Compensation Crisis?, Kathryn Zeiler

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Article is organized as follows. Part II summarizes the common rhetoric in tort reform debates that places the blame for rising premiums on the liability system and touts tort reform as the cure-all for ailing insurance markets. It then summarizes empirical results, produced using Texas closed claims data and other data, which suggest not only that Texas tort reform advocates wrongly placed blame on the liability system, but also that noneconomic damages caps passed in 2003 have caused more harm than good. Part III describes results that suggest that the widely used tactic of pointing to jumbo jury verdicts …

Uncertainty And The Advantage Of Collective Settlement Symposium: The Limits Of Predictability And The Value Of Uncertainty: Sixteenth Annual Clifford Symposium On Tort Law And Social Policy, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

Judgments are printed in black and white; reality comes in shades of gray. The settlement palette available to negotiating parties, unlike the adjudication palette available to judges and juries, offers a range of grays to suit the realities of uncertain liability, uncertain causation, and uncertain damages. Settlement thus offers certain advantages over adjudication. I am not referring to process advantages, such as speed, economy, privacy, and relationship preservation. Rather, I am referring to the idea that settlements may offer outcomes that more accurately comport with justice under the relevant facts and law. There is, of course, a long-running debate over …

When Is Religious Speech Outrageous?: Snyder V. Phelps And The Limits Of Religious Advocacy, Jeffrey Shulman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Constitution affords great protection to religiously motivated speech. Religious liberty would mean little if it did not mean the right to profess and practice as well as to believe. But are there limits beyond which religious speech loses its constitutional shield? Would it violate the First Amendment to subject a religious entity to tort liability if its religious profession causes emotional distress? When is religious speech outrageous?

These are vexing questions, to say the least; but the United States Supreme Court will take them up next term—and it will do so in a factual context that has generated as …

Torts As Wrongs, John C.P. Goldberg, Benjamin C. Zipursky

Faculty Scholarship

Torts scholars hold different views on why tort law shifts costs from plaintiffs to defendants. Some invoke notions of justice, some efficiency, and some compensation. Nearly all seem to agree, however, that tort law is about the allocation of losses. This Article challenges the widespread embrace of loss-based accounts as fundamentally misguided. It is wrongs not losses that lie at the foundation of tort law. Tort suits are about affording plaintiffs an avenue of civil recourse against those who have wronged them. Although torts were once routinely understood as wrongs, since Holmes’s time, tort scholars have tended to suppose that …

Rewarding Trespass & Other Enigmas: The Strange World Of Self-Exclusion & Casino Liability, Emir Aly Crowne-Mohammed, Meredith A. Harper

UNLV Gaming Law Journal

In this paper, the authors address many of the tortious and contractual issues associated with the liability of casinos to problem gamblers. The issues in tort are analyzed through the traditional elements of the action – duty of care, standard of care, proximity, and recognizable loss. Under contract law, the authors examine the problems associated with consideration and mental capacity when problem gamblers sign a contractual undertaking to be excluded from casinos and other gaming venues.

Many of the references cited in this work relate to the Province of Ontario because an earlier article (and report) on the issue of …

The Frequency, Predictability, And Proportionality Of Jury Awards Of Punitive Damages In State Courts In 2005: A New Audit, Neil Vidmar, Mirya Holman

Faculty Scholarship

The state of punitive damages in the United States has been a controversial topic for more than three decades, resulting in litigation reaching the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts. Various business advocacy groups have sought to drastically curb or eliminate punitive damages while plaintiffs’ lawyers and consumer groups vigorously defend the use of punitive damages. State legislatures have responded with many substantive and procedural reforms over the years. Yet, in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, the United States Supreme Court, while approvingly citing empirical evidence indicating that there are “not mass-produced runaway awards” and that “by most accounts …

"I'M Not Gay, M'Kay?": Should Falsely Calling Someone A Homosexual Be Defamatory?, Haven Ward

Georgia Law Review

This Article argues a statement misidentifying a personas homosexual should be deemed not defamatory as a matter of law. Whether a statement is defamatory changes as social mores and policies evolve, such that a statement deemed defamatory in the past may not be defamatory now. For example, historically, courts deemed statements misidentifying a person as homosexual defamatory per se. As society's opinion of homosexuality began to improve, courts instead required proof of special damages for a plaintiff to maintain a defamation action for such statements. No American court, however, has yet held that such a statement is not defamatory as …

Sanctioning Hard Bargaining: A Critique Of State Offer-Of- Settlement Rules, Philip M. Thompson

Georgia Law Review

In the United States' health-care-conscious climate of the past few years, tort reform has been a popular topic for state and federal legislators. Two reform devices that most states have adopted are offer-of-judgment and offer-of-settlement rules. Modeled after Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, these rules enable parties to issue offers either entitling or subjecting the parties to penalties ranging from the less impressive costs of litigation to severe awards of attorney's fees and interest on the judgment. These rules were enacted to curb litigation and to reduce the strain such litigation places on state budgets. Some states set out …

Limiting Article Iii Standing To "Accidental" Plaintiffs: Lessons From Environmental And Animal Law Cases, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.

Georgia Law Review

According to the Supreme Court, Article III's extension
of "judicialPower" to "Cases" and "Controversies"limits
standing to plaintiffs who can demonstrate an
individualized "injury in fact" that was caused by the
defendant and that is judicially redressable. Article III's
text and history, however, do not mention "injury,"
"causation,"or "redressability."
Furthermore, these standards are malleable and have
been applied to achieve ideological goals, especially in
cases involving environmental and animal-welfare laws.
Most notably, the Court has recognized an "injury in fact"
to one's aesthetic enjoyment of nature, but determining
such an injury is arbitrarybecause "aesthetics"is a matter
of personal taste. Judges have …

Defense Against Outrage And The Perils Of Parasitic Torts, Geoffrey C. Rapp

Georgia Law Review

Two prominent narratives in tort law scholarship
address the increasing recognition of claims for loss of
emotional tranquility and the expanding privilege to use
force in defense of self and others. This Article explores a
puzzle in tort law that challenges these traditional
accounts. Can force be used to defend against intentional
extreme or outrageous conduct threatening a person with
severe emotional distress? The answer in the case law and
articulated doctrine appears to be "no." The law permits
the use of force to protect dignitary interests, in the case of
offensive battery and assault, but seems to deny the …

Integrity And The Incongruities Of Justice: A Review Of Daniel Markovits, A Modern Legal Ethics, Benjamin C. Zipursky

Faculty Scholarship

Daniel Markovits’ recent book, A Modern Legal Ethics: Adversary Advocacy in a Democratic Age, begins by articulating an ethical quandary common to litigators: how can I advocate zealously for a client whose story might not be true and whose causes might not be just? In Markovits’ hands, the dilemmas of the adversary advocate are transformed into a philosophical puzzle about the nature of integrity and the very idea of fidelity to a client. Lawyers face a far more onerous ethical burden than is sometimes recognized, Markovits argues, for the adversary advocate in our legal system is professionally obligated to lie …

Innocent Threats, Concealed Consent And The Necessary Presence Of Strict Liability In Traditional Fault-Based Tort Law, Marin Roger Scordato

Scholarly Articles

This article identifies and carefully analyzes the use in tort law of what is termed unilateral and bilateral legal analysis. Unilateral, or one-party, analysis involves the design of legal doctrine that is focused on the characteristics or status of a single legal person. It is traditionally associated with criminal law, where the doctrinal attention is tightly focused on the criminal defendant. Inquiry may be made regarding the nature and degree of harm suffered by the victim, or whether the victim agreed to the harm producing act, but these considerations are generally relevant only to the degree that they shed light …

Introduction To Symposium: Reasoning From Literature, Jessica Silbey

Faculty Scholarship

The “literary turn” in legal studies manifests in many ways in our legal discipline and practice. Be it with the birth of the study of law and literature in the 1980s, the growing attention to narrative theory and storytelling in the law in the 1990s, or the “cultural turn” in legal studies in the 21st century (as some scholars have called the cultural analysis of law), reasoning from literature seems commonplace. And yet it is still marginalized in legal studies as interdisciplinary, not “really law,” and lacking the core persuasive power that legal argumentation and doctrinal analysis do. This Symposium …

Tort Damages And The New Science Of Happiness, Rick Swedloff, Peter H. Huang

Publications

The happiness revolution is coming to legal scholarship. Based on empirical data about the how and why of positive emotions, legal scholars are beginning to suggest reforms to legal institutions. In this article we aim to redirect and slow down this revolution.

One of their first targets of these legal hedonists is the jury system for tort damages. In several recent articles, scholars have concluded that early findings about hedonic adaptation and affective forecasting undermine tort awards for pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-economic damages. In the shadow of a broader debate about …