August 26, 2008
Another Jackpot (In)Justice: Verdict Variability and Issue Preclusion in Mass Torts
I've posted my manuscript, Another Jackpot (In)Justice: Verdict Variability and Issue Preclusion in Mass Torts, on Bepress. Here's the abstract:
If there are no prior inconsistent verdicts, non-mutual offensive issue preclusion generally allows a finding by a single jury to bar relitigation, in future cases, of the issue by the defendant who lost in the prior case. This approach, however, ignores the possibility that the first verdict delivered may have been an outlier if further verdicts were permitted to be delivered. In mass tort litigation, such a flawed approach may result in critical issues such as defect or negligence being resolved by only six jurors, whose potentially outlier verdict is then applied to resolve the cases of thousands, perhaps bankrupting a company or an industry when most juries would not so hold. Focusing on mass tort litigation, this article presents the growing empirical evidence of verdict variability and then critiques the use of issue preclusion, whose downside is applied only against defendants, not plaintiffs, because only defendants were parties to the prior action. As a result, the article argues that courts should exercise their discretion to deny issue preclusion in mass tort litigation. Instead, courts should join the emerging consensus of mass tort management that ultimately better serves the goals of efficiency and public respect supposedly underlying issue preclusion: allow multiple verdicts to unfold a more balanced view of liability that will frequently be used for well-informed and far-reaching settlements.
This manuscript extends the analysis begun in my prior article, Jackpot Justice: Verdict Variability in the Mass Tort Class Action, Temple L. Rev. (forthcoming 2008).
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another Jackpot (In)Justice: Verdict Variability and Issue Preclusion in Mass Torts: