TortsProf Blog

Editor: Christopher J. Robinette
Widener Univ. School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Injured ATV Owner Now Owns Abandoned Arkansas Amusement Park

Dogpatch USA was a theme park in Arkansas for years, but closed in 1993.  Back in 2005, an ATV rider hit a tension wire run between two trees and sued the owners of the park.  He won, but, as they were otherwise judgment-proof, he ended up as the proud owner of the park.  All sorts of interesting issues about trespassers as plaintiffs, etc.

--BC

May 5, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Cupp on Flagrant Trespassers

Richard Cupp (Pepperdine) has posted to SSRN In Praise of Moral Judgment:  The Restatement (Third) of Torts and Flagrant "Bad Guy" Trespassers.  The abstract provides:

In this Article, Professor Cupp argues that the Restatement (Third) of Torts’s creativity in addressing duty toward intentional, morally culpable trespassers is both appropriate and helpful for at least two reasons. First, jurisdictions’ approaches to assessing potential liability for injuries to intentional and morally culpable trespassers are untidy and divided. Thus, seeking to articulate a clear dominant rule would be problematic. Second, this unique category of tort claims has a highly disproportionate impact on public acceptance of the civil justice system. How these cases are adjudicated influences much more than the limited number of cases involving tort lawsuits by intentional, morally culpable trespassers. Because of the public’s perception of this subject of tort claims as emblematic of perceived problems with the broader civil justice system, this is an area in which thoughtful leadership by the ALI is particularly important.

Professor Cupp then examines two torts cases involving injuries to trespassers that were heavily influential on the development of the Restatement (Third) of Torts's position on this issue. The first is the 1971 Iowa case of Katko v. Briney. The second is the mid-1980s California case of Bodine v. Enterprise High School, which prompted changes to the California Civil Code that effectively eliminated tort liability for land possessors when a criminal trespassers are injured on their property. He concludes by exploring the impact of the use of specific language, such as the word "flagrant," in the Restatement (Third) of Torts when describing criminal trespassers.

--CJR

May 3, 2011 in Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

New Book - "European Tort Law: Basic Texts"

European tort law

Ken Oliphant (Director, Institute for European Tort Law) is co-editor of a new book - European Tort Law: Basic Texts.  From the publisher:

This unique collection makes available, for the first time in a single volume, English versions of basic tort law texts from 27 national systems in Europe. It includes key provisions of national civil codes and other important legislative enactments, as well as extracts from leading cases. Additional chapters deal with EU Law (EU Tort Law and EU Conflict of Laws) and the European harmonisation projects (the Principles of European Tort Law and the Draft Common Frame of Reference).

The book was launched on the occasion of last week’s 10th Annual Conference on European Tort Law in Vienna, and is dedicated to the conference’s founder, Helmut Koziol.

- SBS

 

 

May 3, 2011 in Books, Scholarship, TortsProfs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, May 2, 2011

The Suit That Wasn't

The New York Daily News reports that the statute of limitations has expired on any potential defamation claim by Lance Armstrong against Floyd Landis.   It was over a year ago that Landis alleged that Armstrong used banned substances.   In addition to Armstrong's denials, the International Cycling Union also has disavowed Landis's claims.

- SBS

May 2, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Klein on a Restatement of Intentional Torts

Andy Klein (Indiana-Indianapolis) has posted to SSRN A Restatement (Third) of Torts:  Liability for Intentional Harm to Persons-Reflections on Professor Bublick's Thoughts.  The abstract provides:

This essay responds to Professor Ellen Bublick’s article, "A Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Intentional Harm to Persons – Thoughts," 44 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1335 (2009). In that article, Professor Bublick proposes guidelines for a Restatement (Third) of Torts project on intentional torts. This response asserts that the benefits of such a project would be minimal, and suggests that the current sections on intentional torts from the Restatement (Second) of Torts can remain harmoniously in place with the Restatement (Third)’s provisions.

--CJR

 

May 1, 2011 in Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)