Friday, July 27, 2012
Mike Rustad (Suffolk) has posted two pieces to SSRN. First, he reviews Marshall Shapo's new book in The Myth of a Value-Free Injury Law: Constitutive Injury Law as a Cultural Battleground. The abstract provides:
This review essay critically examines Marshall Shapo’s new book, An Injury Constitution. Shapo’s new book provides a counter to simplistic arguments that torts is driving our economy into a death spiral by jackpot justice judgments in which undeserving plaintiffs collect enormous awards given by runaway juries. Drawing upon forty-six years of torts scholarship and teaching, Shapo’s pluralistic theory demonstrates how injury law reflects our culture and our inner life, as well as our aspirations to constrain bullies and the reckless acts that endanger society. In its eleven chapters, this book contends that American injury law has evolved as the functional equivalent of a constitution.
Second, from the AALS mid-year meeting last month is Tort Teaching Lessons from the BP Oil Spill. The abstract provides:
This article is drawn from my talk on the topic of "How to Teach Disaster as Part of a Torts Curriculum" at the AALS Workshop on Torts, Environment and Disaster from June 8-10, 2012, in Berkeley. This piece draws upon an informal survey I conducted in the spring of 2012 on how torts teachers employed the BP oil spill disaster (and other disasters) in their basic torts course (to illustrate topics such as the economic loss rule, legal causation, damages, and the impact of safety regulations).
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ken Oliphant (Director, Institute for European Tort Law) & Ernst Karner (University of Vienna) have co-edited a book for the European Centre of Tort and Insurance Law/Institute for European Tort Law. Loss of Housekeeping Capacity from De Gruyter is a comparative study on liability for the loss of housekeeping capacity. The abstract provides:
Ken Feinberg has a new book on the market, "Who Gets What: Fair Compensation after Tragedy and Financial Upheaval." From the publisher:
Agent Orange, the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, the Virginia Tech massacre, the 2008 financial crisis, and the Deep Horizon gulf oil spill: each was a disaster in its own right. What they had in common was their aftermath—each required compensation for lives lost, bodies maimed, livelihoods wrecked, economies and ecosystems upended. In each instance, an objective third party had to step up and dole out allocated funds: in each instance, Presidents, Attorneys General, and other public officials have asked Kenneth R. Feinberg to get the job done.
In Who Gets What?, Feinberg reveals the deep thought that must go into each decision, not to mention the most important question that arises after a tragedy: why compensate at all? The result is a remarkably accessible discussion of the practical and philosophical problems of using money as a way to address wrongs and reflect individual worth.
NPR recently interviewed Feinberg about the book and his experiences.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Abnormal Use reports that a New Jersey Superior Court has rejected the "innovator liability" theory accepted by a California court in Conte v. Wyeth. Under this theory, a plaintiff sues a brand-name manufacturer of a drug for injuries allegedly caused by taking the generic version of the drug. To date, Conte is the only decision upholding this theory of liability.