August 11, 2011
Two quick things about amusement parks:
- First, Wiggin & Dana attorney Erik Beard has started a blog about amusement park law generally, and today he's posted about why, in his view, the founding fathers would be glad that there are widely varying amusement ride regulatory schemes.
- Second, this weekend's episode of This American Life will be all about amusement parks. I may or may not be in it -- I spent a day at Six Flags New England with a producer and did a few interviews with her, but it's still not entirely clear whether her segment will be in. (It's a tight episode.) But you should listen anyway.
August 10, 2011
Gardner on Civil Recourse Theory
John Gardner (Oxford) has posted to SSRN Torts and Other Wrongs, his contribution to the Florida State civil recourse symposium. The abstract provides:
In this paper, a draft contribution to a symposium on the work of John Goldberg and Ben Zipursky, I take Goldberg and Zipursky to task for failing to distinguish the law of torts adequately from some neighbouring areas of private law. I focus on their equivocation on the question of whether reparative (a.k.a. compensatory) damages have a special place in the law of torts. I suggest that this equivocation is bound up with Goldberg's and Zipursky's wish to maintain what I argue to be an artificial rivalry between their 'civil recourse' explanation of tort law and the 'corrective justice' explanations associated with Weinrib, Coleman, and others. I suggest that 'civil recourse' and 'corrective justice' each capture part of the truth about tort law. I end by addressing briefly some doubts about whether this is a truth worth capturing.
August 9, 2011
Charleston Receives Full Accreditation
I just have to mention our big news. The Charleston School of Law received full accreditation from the ABA last Friday!
Our congrats to Drexel, which also received full accreditation on Friday.
August 8, 2011
Dead Men Can't Be Sued for Punitive Damages
The Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed its long standing rule (dating back to 1884) prohibiting punitive damages claims against deceased individuals. The court reasoned that awarding punitive damages against an estate does not serve the purposes of punitive damages, which the court identified as (1) punishment, (2) specific deterrence, and (3) general deterrence. Iowa's decision follows the majority rule on this issue. (The opinion helpfully includes footnotes and citations discussing the majority/minority breakdown).
Thanks to How Appealing for the info.