Torts Commons^™

How Much Do Expert Opinions Matter? An Empirical Investigation Of Selection Bias, Adversarial Bias, And Judicial Deference In Chinese Medical, Chunyan Ding

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

This article investigates the nature of the operation and the role of expert opinions in Chinese medical negligence litigation, drawing on content analysis of 3,619 medical negligence cases and an in-depth survey of judges with experience of adjudicating medical negligence cases. It offers three major findings: first, that both parties to medical negligence disputes show significant selection bias of medical opinions, as do courts when selecting court-appointed experts; second, expert opinions in medical negligence litigation demonstrate substantial adversarial bias; third, courts display very strong judicial deference to expert opinions in determining medical negligence liability. This article fills the methodological gap …

I Pity The Fool: Ori Herstein’S Defense Of The Klutz, Anthony J. Sebok

Online Publications

The sad story of Menlove, the defendant in the English case Vaughn v. Menlove is well known to all first-year torts students. Menlove was born, according to his lawyer, with the “misfortune of not possessing the highest order of intelligence,” and, as a result did something quite imprudent with flammable material that no person of average or typical intelligence (or judgment) would have done, resulting in a fire that damaged the plaintiff, his neighbor.

Nothing Is Over: Ftca Claims For Toxic Torts On Native Lands, Jessica Ditmore

American Indian Law Journal

In 1976, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) to curtail the growing problem of disposing of hazardous waste and toxic substances generally. Decades prior, Congress established the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) to hold the federal Government liable for tortious conduct the same way a private citizen would be. The federal government assumed the responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of Native Nations (“NN”). This is commonly referred to the “Trust Doctrine.” This duty stems from the settlement of Native American lands, and a recognition of the treaties entered into by the United States with a “moral [obligation] …

Emergent Regulatory Systems And Their Challenges: The Case Of Combination Medical Products, George Horvath

Washington Law Review

Where regulatory systems overlap, courts and scholars often focus on the undesirable aspects of the overlap—the ways in which systems conflict. One such context involves the regulation of prescription drugs and medical devices by the FDA’s premarket evaluation processes and by state common-law tort and products liability actions. FDA regulation and state common law are often described as separate, conflicting regulatory systems. This Article challenges that description by proposing a model in which FDA premarket evaluation and state common law function as a single regulatory system. This model brings order to the Supreme Court’s seemingly inconsistent medical products preemption cases, …

Third-Party Liability Of Directors And Officers: Reconciling Corporate Personality And Personal Responsibility In Tort, Michael Marin

Dalhousie Law Journal

When is a director or of�� cer personally liable in tort to a party who is not the corporation he or she serves? In Canada, there is no clear answer. The law is marked by division both within and between appellate courts, resulting in judgments that are hard to reconcile and verge on arbitrary. This is likely attributable to the mistaken belief that there is a tension between personal liability and corporate personality, as well as the disputed relationship between common law and statutory obligations. To address these challenges, most Canadian courts have followed a threshold corporate law analysis, which …

Public Nuisance Claims After Conagra, Steven Czak

Fordham Law Review

This Note examines the continuing harms of lead-based paint and attempts by cities and states to hold manufacturers and distributors liable for abatement under the public nuisance doctrine. Such suits have stretched traditional conceptions of public nuisance, particularly on the threshold issue of whether pervasive lead paint in residences infringes on a common right held by the public. This Note reviews the major lead paint public nuisance cases from across the country. The plaintiffs were unsuccessful in each case for a variety of reasons until ten California counties prevailed in People v. ConAgra in November 2017. While subsequently reduced by …

Modern Waste Law, Bankruptcy, And Residential Mortgages, Jill M. Fraley

Cardozo Law Review

Around the time of the subprime mortgage collapse, lenders began in earnest to sue borrowers by adapting the traditional law of waste. Today, these claims continue to rise in frequency and to expand to more jurisdictions. Lender waste claims provide a "work around" for state mortgage laws that prohibit personal deficiency judgments after foreclosure and are potentially non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.

While a recent wave of scholarship has addressed the problems of how the bankruptcy system handles mortgages, scholars have not yet explored the use of waste actions by lenders and how waste judgments intersect with bankruptcy and foreclosure. Using new …

The Case Against Expanding Defamation Law, Yonathan A. Arbel, Murat C. Mungan

Faculty Scholarship

It is considered axiomatic that defamation law protects reputation. This proposition—commonsensical, pervasive, and influential—is faulty. Underlying this fallacy is the failure to appreciate audience effects: the interaction between defamation law and members of the audience.

Defamation law seeks to affect the behavior of speakers by making them bear a cost for spreading untruthful information. Invariably, however, the law will also affect members of the audience, as statements made in a highly regulated environment tend to appear more reliable than statements made without accountability. Strict defamation law would tend to increase the perceived reliability of statements, which in some cases can …

Increasing Lapses In Data Security: The Need For A Common Answer To What Constitutes Standing In A Data Breach Context, Aaron Benjamin Edelman

Journal of Law and Policy

As the number of data breaches continues to rise in the United States, so does the amount of data breach litigation. Many potential plaintiffs who suffered as victims of data breaches, however, find themselves in limbo regarding the issue of standing before a court because of a significant split on standing determinations amongst the federal circuit courts. Thus, while victims of data breaches oftentimes have their personal information fall into the hands of nefarious characters who intend to use the information to a victim’s detriment, that may not be enough to provide victims a right to sue in federal court …

Follow The Money? A Proposed Approach For Disclosure Of Litigation Finance Agreements, Maya Steinitz

Faculty Scholarship

Litigation finance is the new and fast-growing practice by which a non-party funds a plaintiff’s litigation either for-profit or for some other motivation. Some estimates placed the size of the litigation finance market at 50–100 billion dollars. Both proponents and opponents of this newly -emergent phenomenon are in agreement that the it is the most important development in civil justice of this era. Litigation finance is already transforming civil litigation at the level of the single case as well as, incrementally, at the level of the civil justice system as a whole. It is also beginning to transform the way …

Reaching Through The “Ghost Doxer:” An Argument For Imposing Secondary Liability On Online Intermediaries, Natalia Homchick

Washington and Lee Law Review

Imagine you have decided to run for office, to speak out publicly against an injustice, to enter the job market, or even to join a new online forum. Now, imagine after starting your chosen endeavor, you go online to discover that someone who disagrees with your position posted your personal information on the internet and called for others to harass you. To make matters worse, you realize that you cannot determine who posted your personal data. You have been doxed. Because you cannot identify the person who posted your information, where can you turn for recourse? The next logical party …

Law School News: Logan To Serve As Adviser On Restatement Third Of Torts 11-07-2019, Michael M. Bowden

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Liability For Ai Decision-Making: Some Legal And Ethical Considerations, Iria Giuffrida

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

When (And Why) The Levee Breaks: A Suggested Causation Framework For Takings Claims That Arise From Government-Induced Flooding, Charles D. Wallace

William & Mary Law Review

In 1968, the United States Army Corps of Engineers finished constructing the seventy-six-mile Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO) navigational channel. Congress authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to begin construction to create a shipping route between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. However, the MRGO also caused significant erosion and other environmental detriments that greatly increased the risk of flooding around its vicinity. The Army Corps of Engineers learned about many of these detriments and risks through numerous studies it conducted between 1998 and 2005, but never fully addressed them.

Hurricane Katrina eventually showcased the MR-GO’s defects in violent fashion. …

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

Articles

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 …

Milkovich, #Metoo, And “Liars”: Defamation Law And The Fact-Opinion Distinction, Pooja Bhaskar

Fordham Law Review

Since the start of the #MeToo movement, sexual assault survivors have increasingly turned defamation law against their alleged assaulters. In these #MeToo defamation cases, an alleged victim publicly claims that another person, usually someone of considerable wealth and fame, sexually assaulted them. The alleged assaulter then calls their accuser a liar, causing their accuser to sue their alleged assaulter for defamation. These cases have consistently raised an element of the defamation analysis that has long challenged courts: distinguishing between statements of actionable “fact” and nonactionable “opinion.” #MeToo defamation cases raise the question of whether an alleged assaulter’s claim that their …

The Defamation Injunction Meets The Prior Restraint Doctrine, Doug Rendleman

San Diego Law Review

This article maintains that, under defined circumstances, a judge should be able to grant an injunction that forbids the defendant’s proved defamation. It analyzes the common law of defamation, the constitutional prior restraint doctrine, the constitutional protection for defamation that stems from New York Times v. Sullivan, and injunctions and their enforcement.

In Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court expanded protection for expression by adding an injunction to executive licensing as a prior restraint. Although the Near court circumscribed the injunction as a prior restraint, it approved criminal sanctions and damages judgment for defamation. An injunction that forbids the defendant’s …

Measles And Misrepresentation In Minnesota: Can There Be Liability For Anti-Vaccine Misinformation That Causes Bodily Harm?, Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, John Diamond

San Diego Law Review

Balancing protecting and compensating victims of harmful fake news and protecting freedom of speech and the information flow is both important and challenging. Vaccines are one area where misinformation can directly cause harm. When misrepresentation leads people to refuse vaccines, disease outbreaks can happen, causing harm, even deaths, and imposing costs on the community. The tort of negligent misrepresentation that causes physical harm appears a custom-made remedy for those affected. However, courts—appropriately— narrowed the tort to protect freedom of speech and the flow of information. This Article uses an especially egregious example of anti-vaccine misrepresentation to examine the boundaries of …

“Go Sue Yourself!” Imagining Intrapersonal Liability For Negligently Self-Inflicted Harms, Lars Noah

Florida Law Review

Are “self-inflicted” harms actionable? Courts increasingly have allowed victims to identify other (typically unrelated) parties that may share responsibility for such injuries. Moreover, insofar as judges now also permit lawsuits against closely related parties, they arguably have expanded what it means for a harm to qualify as self-inflicted. Taking these various doctrinal developments to an illogical extreme, this Article asks whether we should just let victims bring tort claims against themselves, understanding that the victims’ own liability insurers represent the intended targets. That this idea is not as crazy as it sounds suggests the extent to which tort law has …

Death Be Not Strange. The Montreal Convention’S Mislabeling Of Human Remains As Cargo And Its Near Unbreakable Liability Limits, Christopher Ogolla

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article discusses Article 22 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (“The Montreal Convention”) and its impact on the transportation of human remains. The Convention limits carrier liability to a sum of 19 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) per kilogram in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of part of the cargo or of any object contained therein. Transportation of human remains falls under Article 22 which forecloses any recovery for pain and suffering unaccompanied by physical injury. This Article finds fault with this liability limit. The Article notes that if …