Recalibrating The Legal Risks Of Cross-Border Health Care,
2010
Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law
Recalibrating The Legal Risks Of Cross-Border Health Care, Nathan Cortez
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
The nascent scholarship surrounding "medical tourism" assumes, without much scrutiny, that foreign jurisdictions provide few legal remedies to patients, instead focusing on whether U.S. patients can sue in U.S. courts. This article tests that assumption by examining whether patients might recover adequate compensation not only in the United States, but in four common destinations: India, Thailand, Singapore, and Mexico. I analyze how each jurisdiction handles medical malpractice complaints and discuss the unique obstacles patients might face when navigating each of these systems. I conclude that U.S. patients will struggle to recover remotely adequate compensation in each of these jurisdictions. This …
Square Peg In A Round Hole: Government Contractor Battlefield Tort Liability And The Political Question Doctrine,
2010
Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law
Square Peg In A Round Hole: Government Contractor Battlefield Tort Liability And The Political Question Doctrine, Chris Jenks
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
Recent assertions of the political question doctrine by battlefield contractor defendants in tort litigation have brought new life to the doctrine while raising new questions. The lawsuits stem from incidents in both Iraq and Afghanistan and include plaintiffs ranging from local nationals suing contract interrogators and interpreters, to contract employees suing another contractor following insurgent attacks, to U.S. service members suing contractors after vehicle and airplane crashes. The lawsuits involve tort claims, which on their face do not conjure up images of a constitutional power struggle, but in at least fifteen cases thus far contractor defendants have asserted the political …
The Frequency, Predictability, And Proportionality Of Jury Awards Of Punitive Damages In State Courts In 2005: A New Audit,
2010
Duke Law School
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?,
2010
Patton Boggs LLP
"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,
2010
University of Georgia School of Law
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,
2010
Pepperdine University School of Law
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,
2010
University of Toledo College of Law
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 …
The Easy Case For Products Liability: A Response To Polinsky & Shavell,
2010
Fordham University School of Law
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, …
Integrity And The Incongruities Of Justice: A Review Of Daniel Markovits, A Modern Legal Ethics,
2010
Fordham University School of Law
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 …
Two Masters,
2010
University of Michigan Law School
Two Masters, Carl E. Schneider
Articles
American government rests on the principle of distrust of government. Not only is power within the federal government checked and balanced. Power is divided between the federal government and the state governments. So what if a state law conflicts with a federal law? The Constitution says that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ... any Thing in the ... Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Sometimes the conflict between federal and state law is obvious and the Supremacy Clause is easily applied. But sometimes ...
The Multiple Common Law Roots Of Charitable Immunity: An Essay In Honor Of Richard Epstein's Contributions To Tort Law,
2010
University of Michigan Law School
The Multiple Common Law Roots Of Charitable Immunity: An Essay In Honor Of Richard Epstein's Contributions To Tort Law, Jill R. Horwitz
Articles
Professor Epstein has long promoted replacing tort-based malpractice law with a new regime based on contracts. In Mortal Peril, he grounded his normative arguments in favor of such a shift in the positive, doctrinal history of charitable immunity law. In this essay, in three parts, I critique Professor Epstein’s suggestion that a faulty set of interpretations in charitable immunity law led to our current reliance on tort for malpractice claims. First, I offer an alternative interpretation to Professor Epstein’s claim that one group of 19th and early 20th century cases demonstrates a misguided effort to protect donor wishes. Rather, I …
Coordinating Sanctions In Torts,
2010
University of Michigan Law School
Coordinating Sanctions In Torts, Kyle D. Logue
Articles
This Article begins with the standard Law and Economics account of tort law as a regulatory tool or system of deterrence, that is, as a means of giving regulated parties the optimal ex ante incentives to minimize the costs of accidents. Building on this fairly standard (albeit not universally accepted) picture of tort law, the Article asks the question how tort law should adjust, if at all, to coordinate with already existing non-tort systems of regulation. Thus, if a particular activity is already subject to extensive agency-based regulation (whether in the form of command-and-control requirements or in the form of …
Of Coase, Calabresi, And Optimal Tax Liability,
2010
University of Michigan Law School
Of Coase, Calabresi, And Optimal Tax Liability, Kyle D. Logue, Joel Slemrod
Articles
The Article proceeds as follows. Part II offers a primer on the Coase Theorem, beginning with the classic case of neighbor externalizing on neighbor (farmer and rancher), and it explains the basic invariance propositions. Part III shifts the focus to Coasean situations involving buyers and sellers in a market or contractual relationship, buyers and sellers whose market interactions cause harm to third parties. Using supply-and-demand diagrams, we illustrate (in a new way) some of the most basic findings of the economic analysis of law, including both the Coasean invariance and efficiency propositions and the Calabresian least-cost avoider idea. Also in …
