Torts Commons^™

Suing The President For First Amendment Violations, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

On any given day, it seems, President Donald Trump can be found attacking, threatening, or punishing the press and other individuals whose speech he dislikes. His actions, moreover, inevitably raise the question: Do any of these individuals or organizations (or any future ones) have a viable claim against the President for violating their First Amendment rights?

One might think that the ability to sue the President for violation of the First Amendment would be relatively settled. The answer, however, is not quite that straightforward. Due to several unique qualities about the First Amendment and the presidency, it is not entirely …

Qualified Immunity And Statutory Interpretation: A Response To William Baude, Hillel Y. Levin, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

In his article, Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?, Professor Baude argues that the doctrine of qualified immunity under section 1983 is unlawful because the doctrine did not exist at the time section 1983 was enacted. We disagree. Section 1983 is a common law statute. Consequently, its meaning and application was not fixed at the time of original passage. In this article, we explain why.

Although we are sympathetic to Professor Baude’s implicit policy-based critique of the doctrine of qualified immunity, we believe his analysis is flawed. The better and more likely way to improve the doctrine is through the common law …

Wrongful Convictions, Constitutional Remedies, And Nelson V. Colorado, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

This article examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s Nelson v. Colorado opinion, in which the Court addressed the novel issue of remedies for persons wrongly convicted of crimes. Governments routinely deprive criminal defendants of both liberty and property upon conviction, and do so before giving them a chance to appeal their convictions and sentences. When a conviction is overturned, the state typically refunds fines and most other monetary exactions but seldom compensates for the loss of liberty. In Nelson, the Supreme Court addressed an unusual case in which the state did not return the money and that refusal was approved (purportedly …

Qualified Immunity After Ziglar V. Abbasi: The Case For A Categorical Approach, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

Qualified immunity protects officers from liability for damages unless they have violated clearly established rights, on the ground that it would be unfair and counterproductive to impose liability without notice of wrongdoing. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has increasingly applied the doctrine to cases in which it serves little or no legitimate purpose. In Ziglar v. Abbasi, for example, the rights were clearly established but the Court held that the officers were immune due to lack of clarity on other issues in the case. Because holdings like Ziglar undermine the vindication of constitutional rights and the deterrence of …

Publicly Funded Objectors, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

On paper, class actions run like clockwork. But practice suggests the need for tune-ups: sometimes judges still approve settlements rife with red flags, and professional objectors may be more concerned with shaking down class counsel than with improving class members’ outcomes. The lack of data on the number of opt-outs, objectors, and claims rates fuels debates on both sides, for little is known about how well or poorly class members actually fare. This reveals a ubiquitous problem — information barriers confront judges, objectors, and even reformers. Rule 23’s answer is to empower objectors. At best, objectors are a partial fix. …

United States Supreme Court Surveys: 2016 Term. Still Standing After All These Years: Five Decades Of Litigation Under The Fair Housing Act And The Supreme Court Still Can't Say For Sure Who Is Protected, David A. Logan

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Cure From Rome For Montreal’S Illness: Article 5 Of The Rome I Regulation And Filling The Void In The 1999 Montreal Convention’S Regulation Of Carrier’S Liability For Personal Injury, Yehya I. Ibrahim Badr

Journal of Air Law and Commerce

An examination of the 1999 Montreal Convention shows that the drafters did not intend to lay down a comprehensive treaty that would organize a carrier’s liability for personal injury to passengers. They opted to achieve a certain level of uniformity through enacting a set of rules that tackled several key issues such as the grounds for a carrier’s liability, the available defenses, and the limits on the recoverable damages. Consequently, some unaddressed issues created a void in the Montreal Convention and were then left without a clear remedy. In this article, a distinction is made between two types of voids: …

Your Bank May Be An International Terrorist: The Inconsistent Application Of Tort Law Principles To Financial Services Under The Anti-Terrorism Act, Elizabeth Walsh Pittman

The International Lawyer

No abstract provided.

The Lopsided Harms Of Reproductive Negligence, Carol Sanger

Faculty Scholarship

The concept of reproductive negligence is probably not unfamiliar to men and women of child-bearing or child-begetting age. Many a restless hour has been spent worrying about the consequences of a skipped pill, an abandoned condom, or some other form of contraceptive carelessness. The general rule in such circumstances is that the injured party has no recourse in tort against a sexual partner whose negligence resulted, say, in a pregnancy. (Interestingly, liability may arise as the result of the negligent transmission of herpes.) To be sure, not all reproductive misconduct is negligent; some is intentional, as when a sexual partner …

Climate Tort Federalism, Tracy Hester

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Engineering Standards In Highway Design Litigation, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

Highway engineers sometimes believe that if they redesign streets to improve pedestrian safety (for example, by introducing traffic calming techniques) they might be successfully sued for negligent design by motorists. This chapter suggests that in such situations, governments are likely to be protected by discretionary function immunity. In addition, the chapter discusses a variety of technical issues.

Through The Smoke: Do Current Civil Liability Laws Address The Unique Issues Presented By The Recreational Marijuana Industry?, Thomas Stufano

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evil Nudges, Michal Lavi

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

The seminal book Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein demonstrates that policy makers can prod behavioral changes. A nudge is "any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people's behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives." This type of strategy, and the notion of libertarian paternalism at its base, prompted discussions and objections. Academic literature tends to focus on the positive potential of nudges and neglects to address libertarian paternalism that does not promote the welfare of individuals and third parties, but rather infringes on it-a concept this Article refers to …

Deep Pocket Jurisprudence: Where Tort Law Should Draw The Line, Victor E. Schwartz, Phil Goldberg, Christopher E. Appel

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Agriculture And Res Ipsa Loquitur, Chad G. Marzen

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Impropriety Of Punitive Damages In Mass Torts, James A. Henderson Jr.

Georgia Law Review

Punitive damages have been around for centuries in classic
one-on-one tort actions and are here to stay. Mass torts, of
more recent origin, have matured to the point that this article
is comfortable referring to most of them as traditional.
Notwithstanding the legitimacy of both institutions when
employed separately, loud warning signals should sound
when, as with drinking and driving, they are combined.
Potentially destructive mixes of punitive damages and mass
torts have, unfortunately, been prevalent in traditional,fault-
based mass tort actions. The difficulties are mostly
administrative.Although punitive damages are conceptually
compatible with fault-based mass torts, courts administer
punitive awards …

A Single Symbolic Dollar: How Nominal Damages Can Keep Lawsuits Alive, Megan E. Cambre

Georgia Law Review

The Eleventh Circuit's August 2017 opinion in
Flanigan's Enterprises v. City of Sandy Springs
deepened a circuit split regarding the role of
nominal damages in the justiciabilityanalysis. The
critical question is whether, in cases involving
constitutional violations, a claim for nominal
damages alone suffices to confer standing or to
defeat mootness when other forms of relief are
unavailable or moot. The Second, Fifth, and Ninth
Circuits have all held that nominal damages alone
are enough, but not without contention from
dissenting judges. The First, Third, Fourth,
Seventh, Eighth, and D.C. Circuitshave considered
the question-but have not conclusively decided its
answer. …

The Litigators: Perceptions Of Predictability, Definitions Of A Good Outcome, And An Alternative To Mass Tort Trials, Lisa K. Dicker, Shane K. Hebel

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

A pervasive theme in our understanding of civil legal disputes is the “big case”; that is, the generic mass tort that pits sympathetic clients against shadowy, villainous corporations. In John Grisham’s stories about these cases, a David-and-Goliath legal battle ensues, the parameters of the law shift, the attorneys’ ethics stretch, and the author uses characters to reveal both sides’ deep secrets unwillingly—and sometimes unwittingly. Ultimately, the case leads to a “win” for one side or the other—either a huge payday for the clients and a large percentage-based fee for the lawyers who stumbled across it, or a corporation that …

Re-Evaluating The Demise Of The Average, Ordinary, Reasonable Person: Unintended Consequences In The Law Of Nuisance, George P. Smith Ii, William P. Lane

Scholarly Articles

This Article advocates for a wider pleading use of the tort of nuisance—this, because of the unresolved complexities in the doctrine of causation which continue to plague an effective use of negligence. The confusing awkwardness or, perhaps, the actual demise, of the notion of an average, ordinary, reasonable person so essential to improving negligent wrongdoing has caused aggravation over the years and, indeed, given rise to a state of torbidity.

The judiciary can more easily resolve this evidentiary quagmire by shifting its judicial attention and analysis to the tort of nuisance. With alarming social indicators and statistical projections, confirming the …

Qualified Immunity And Fault, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

As a general rule, liability correlates with fault. That is, when the law declares a person liable, it is usually because the person is, in some sense, at fault. Similarly, when the law does not declare a person liable, it is usually because the person is not deemed to be at fault. There are exceptions, of course. A storekeeper who unwittingly sells a product that harms another may be held liable under the doctrine of strict liability, despite her blameless conduct. Similarly, a website owner who knowingly permits others to post defamatory statements on her website is not liable, despite …