TortsProf Blog

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

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Goldberg on Tort History

John Goldberg has posted to SSRN Tort Law at the Founding.  The abstract provides:

In his influential History of American Law, Lawrence Friedman suggests that tort law was “totally insignificant” prior to the late Nineteenth Century. Implicit in this assessment is a judgment that a body of law is significant only insofar is it addresses a large-scale social problem as such. This criterion stacks the deck against tort law, which is not law of this kind. Rather, it is a law of civil recourse. In fulfillment of a governmental responsibility to its citizens, tort defines a certain kind of wrong and empowers victims of this kind of wrong to obtain redress from wrongdoers.

Written for a 2011 symposium held at Florida State University, this essay melds the insights of civil recourse theory with recent historical scholarship to demonstrate that tort law was central to American legal practice and legal thought long before the Industrial Revolution. In fact, the tort notion of civil recourse set the terms on which this nation was founded. Quite self-consciously, Jefferson cast the Declaration of Independence in the language of civil recourse; the Declaration is our founding lawsuit. The inclusion of the Alien Tort Statute in the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the emergence of the nineteenth-century congressional practice of indemnifying officials for their tort liabilities further demonstrate our early embrace of the core tort notion that government bears a responsibility to provide citizens with law for the recourse of wrongs.

--CJR

June 12, 2012 in Conferences, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Goldberg & Zipursky on Civil Recourse Revisited

John Goldberg & Ben Zipursky respond to critics from last year's Florida State symposium on civil recourse theory in Civil Recourse Revisited.  The abstract provides:

This essay responds to the extensive and thoughtful commentary on civil recourse theory provided by Curtis Bridgeman, Julian and Stephen Darwall, John Gardner, Andrew Gold, Scott Hershovitz, Gabe Mendlow, Nathan Oman, Arthur Ripstein, Anthony Sebok, Emily Sherwin, Jason Solomon, and Ernest Weinrib, all of whom participated in a 2011 symposium at Florida State University School of Law that was devoted to the subject. In it, we defend civil recourse theory against corrective justice theory and (following our own, independent contributions to the symposium) further develop our critiques of that theory. Against methodological criticisms, we maintain that civil recourse theory is an interpretive theory that has both explanatory and normative power. Finally, we briefly tease out some of the implications of civil recourse theory for private law beyond torts (contract law, in particular), and for the philosophical analysis of concepts such as accountability and responsibility.

--CJR

June 7, 2012 in Conferences, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Harvard Symposium on the "New Private Law"

The symposium, held last year, includes Tortsprofs Richard Epstein, John Goldberg, Keith Hylton, John Oberdiek, and Ben Zipursky and can be accessed here.

--CJR

May 31, 2012 in Conferences, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

2012 Clifford Symposium at DePaul Focuses on Marc Galanter

The 2012 Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy, "A Celebration of the Thought of Marc Galanter," will take place on April 26 and 27 at DePaul University College of Law.  As always, the symposium is chaired by Stephan Landsman.

Thanks to Alberto Bernabe for the tip.

--CJR

April 17, 2012 in Conferences | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Agricultural Torts

The Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State is offering a webinar on Monday April 16:

On Monday April 16 from noon to 1 p.m. CST, CALT's Staff Attorney, Erika Eckley, will be conducting a webinar on the important topic of agricultural torts.  Lawyers can obtain 1 hour of CLE for joining in on the webinar.  But, it's not just for lawyers.  If you are an agricultural producer, operate an agribusiness, or are a rural landowner, you will benefit greatly from the 1-hour session.  It's a cost-effective way to learn how the law handles various liability situations, and that knowledge could end up saving you a great deal of dollars and grief in the future. 

Among the topics that Erika will cover include key state and national developments involving topics such as premises liability, nuisance, employer liability, recreational use, and legislative developments of importance to agricultural clients.  Erika will provide a basic primer on the development of an agricultural tort case, including the preservation and development of requisite evidence and proof of damages.

Don't miss this jam-packed session.  You can register for the webinar here:  http://www.calt.iastate.edu/
--CJR

April 12, 2012 in Conferences | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

AALS Mid-Year Meeting: Torts, Environment and Disaster

For those of you who still haven't firmed up your summer plans, consider traveling to Berkeley during June 8-12.  Torts is a focus of this year's AALS Mid-Year Meeting; it includes a "Workshop on Torts, Environment and Disaster."  The planning committee includes Laura Hines, Douglas Kysar, Bob Rabin, Tony Sebok and Lisa Grow Sun.  The speakers are an all-star cast.  The brochure is here.  Still not convinced?

Why Torts Law Teachers Would Attend?

Tort scholarship and tort practice has been concerned with large-scale losses since the advent of the class action. Recent events, such as the attacks of 9/11 and the BP oil spill, have illustrated that the tools of aggregate litigation may not be enough to handle the job of ascertaining both responsibility and compensation after a disaster. The Torts and Compensation Law Section will take advantage of its joint meeting with the Environmental Law Section to provide a fresh look at the special problem that disasters pose for tort law in the 21st Century.

The topics covered by the torts portion of the joint meeting will include whether tort law should be limited in times of disasters, the role (if any) of tort principles in the design of public compensation and private settlement funds, and the relationship between tort and insurance law in times of disaster. At the end of the program there will be a session on the incorporation of issues relating to disaster in the torts curriculum. The program will provide torts and insurance scholars of all levels of seniority with new insights into their own research and teaching.

--CJR

April 11, 2012 in Conferences | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

How Do You Use the BP Gulf Oil Spill In Your Course?

Mike Rustad asks. Mike is speaking 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 Berkley.
Mike would appreciate your input:
In preparation for my talk, I am doing an informal study of how torts teachers use the BP Disaster (or other disasters) in their basic courts course (to illustrate topics such as the economic loss rule, legal causation, etc.), or in advanced torts or products liability classes. I am wondering how torts (and other subjects, too) have incorporated the BP oil spill into their classes. You can reply to me off-line at mrustad [at] suffolk.edu or perhaps we can start a discussion on-line as well. George Conk (Fordham) uses the BP oil spill in his Business Torts class to teach topics such as the economic loss rule, limited duty, and the role of insurance. He has posted a number of BP documents of interest to torts teachers at http://tortstoday.blogspot.com/p/bp-deepwater-horizon-spill.html I would be interested to hear how others use the BP oil spill, Katrina, or other disasters in their torts courses.
- SBS

April 10, 2012 in Conferences, Teaching Torts | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Rapp on R3

Geoff Rapp (Toledo) has posted to SSRN Torts 2.0.  The abstract provides:

In this Symposium Essay, I analogize the American Law Institute's Restatement (Third) of Torts to "Web 2.0." The story of the Third Restatement and its progenitors bears a remarkable resemblance to the great technological revolution of the last century's end: the World Wide Web. Web. 1.0, the first generation of internet activity, treated users as passive. Web 2.0, by contrast, is organic and allowes user preferences to drive site development.

Like Web 2.0, the Third Restatement embraces the "architecture of participation" in the development of tort law. Instead of a top-down approach, ala Web 1.0 and the Second Restatement of Torts, the Third Restatement's embrace of a flexible and open-ended formulation of key tort principles encourages judges and juries to play a participatory role in developing the law of torts.

--CJR

March 21, 2012 in Conferences, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

AALS Torts Panel on Civil Recourse Podcast

AALS has posted the podcasts from the Annual Meeting.  Former Chair of the Torts & Compensation Systems Section Mike Rustad planned and moderated the panel "Twenty-First Century Tort Theories:  A New Audit of Civil Recourse Theory."  One Torts Prof said it was the best torts panel he had heard in nearly 30 years of Annual Meetings. 

After Mike brought the meeting to order, Ben Zipursky nominatedJudge Richard Posner for the Prosser Award.  Judge Posner was unable to attend, but Mike read a letter from Judge Posner accepting the award.  The panelists then spoke in the following order:  John Goldberg, Ben, Judge Guido Calabresi, Martha Chamallas, and me.  The presentations were terrific and I had the best seat in the house--literally inches from the speakers.

The Indiana Law Journal will publish the papers of the panelists--and a piece from Judge Posner--early in 2013.  The podcast is here.  I tried to upload the podcast, but it was too large.  You will need to enter your e-mail address and AALS password.  Then, you will have to scroll down to the appropriate podcast.

--CJR

 

March 14, 2012 in Conferences, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Mass Torts in the Federal Courts - Recap Part II

As I mentioned yesterday, kudos to the students of the Federal Courts Law Review here at the Charleston School of Law for the Mass Torts in the Federal Courts symposium last week. In addition to the keynote address by Ken Feinberg and remarks by Judge Corodemus, the day included three lively panel presentations.

 

Panel 1Panel One focused on Preemption. Moderated by my colleague, Bill Janssen, the panel featured (left to right) Jim Beck (Drug & Device Blog/Dechert), Deepak Gupta (Senior Counsel, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and Cathy Sharkey (NYU). Beck focused on the presumption against preemption and pointed out the Supreme Court's inconsistency on the doctrine. Beck termed the presumption a "judicial football," and noted that Justice Kennedy holds the "key vote" on the issue. Gupta provided a consumer protection viewpoint, and noted that agencies rely on the tort system to supplement and inform the agency's work. Sharkey pointed out the "absurdity" of the Court's rulings in Wyeth v. Levine and Pliva v. Mensing: If you take the generic version of a drug, preemption applies, but if you take the brand name version of the same drug, preemption does not apply. Sharkey advocated a new framework for the Court to view the preemption question focusing on agency consideration: whether the governing agency has paid particular attention to the risk of the plaintiff's injury should control the premption question.

 

Panel 2I moderated Panel Two on "Aggregation and Mass Torts." Sheila Birnbaum is speaking in the photo, while seated left to right are myself, Timothy Eble, Alexandra Lahav (Connecticut) and Linda Mullenix (Texas). Eble and Lahav focused on the current litigation system, while Mullenix and Birnbaum addressed the fund approach. Eble focused on settlement class actions and presented a case study involving a medical monitoring settlement class action. He argued that the settlement class is an appropriate use of Rule 23. Lahav discussed the tension between individualism and efficiency in the debate over how to adjudicate mass torts, and asserted that a third value was missing from this discussion: equality. Responding to Ken Feinberg, Mullenix argued that the fund approach is not "sui generis," but increasingly the chosen method for resolving mass torts. Her presentation focused on the voluntariness of a plaintiff's election of remedies under a fund system, and suggested three solutions to combat what she argued was uninformed consent. Her solutions included provision of pro bono counsel to fund claimants, bar association counseling of fund claimants, and judicial invalidation of fund award's based on lack of informed consent. Birnbaum agreed that we are "going to have lots and lots of funds." In response to Mullenix, Birnbaum pointed out that most of the 9/11 claimants had counsel and discussed her work with the 9/11 litigants as well as with the new 9/11 Fund claimants. Birnbaum asserted that the fund approach can provide "more justice" than litigation and criticized the expense and delay involved in the tort system.

 

Panel 5The final panel considered Ethical Issues Surrounding Fees and Settlements in Mass Torts. Nathan Crystal (Charleston) moderated the panel, with presentations by (left to right) Lynn Baker (Texas), Beth Burke (Richardson Patrick), John Beisner (Skadden), and Morris Ratner (Visting, Harvard/Professor-Elect, UC Hastings). Burke discussed aggregate settlements under Model Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.8, and the use of a point-based allocation system as opposed to a dollar-based system. Ratner addressed a new phenomena - trial courts relying on the ethical rules to impose caps on attorneys' fees in non-class settlements. He argued that the ethics rules do not provide the right guidance to fill this procedural gap, and further that incorporating the ethical rules in this fashion imposed a cost on the system. Beisner proposed that the ethics rules should be strengthened to better address conflicts of interest at the outset of mass tort litigation. In response to Ratner, Beisner suggested that courts felt a need to do something about fees that were perceived to be too high. Finally, Baker also considered the trend of judges imposing caps on fees in non-class actions, and asked whether the plaintiffs' attorney ethically may challenge the cap where the court sua sponte has now created a conflict of interest between the attorney and her client.

My thanks to all the participants for a wonderful conference.

- SBS


March 1, 2012 in Conferences, MDLs and Class Actions, TortsProfs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Mass Torts in the Federal Courts - Recap Part I

Congratulations to the students of the Federal Courts Law Review for a wonderful symposium last Friday, February 24, 2012, on "Mass Torts in the Federal Courts." In today's post, I will recap the two individual presenters: Ken Feinberg and the Honorable Marina Corodemus (ret.).


Feinberg Ken Feinberg gave the keynote address. His remarks focused on his work with the 9/11 Fund as well as the Gulf Coast Claims Facility. Feinberg noted five options to adjudicating mass torts: (1) Rule 23 class actions, (2), MDLs, (3) regional consolidation, (4) bankruptcy by the defendant, and (5) individual litigation of each case. Feinberg expressed skepticism that Rule 23 permitted aggregation of mass torts. While acknowledging that MDLs worked for mass torts, he pointed out that MDLs only capture federal cases. The downside to regional consolidation, according to Feinberg, was that it did not provide truly mass resolution. Finally, he asserted that bankruptcy was a "draconian way" to achieve mass resolution. He argued that the 9/11 Fund and the Gulf Coast Claims Facility were both sui generis and challenged the audience (and other speakers) to address three questions: (1) Are the federal courts receptive to mass tort litigation? (2) What legal challenges to do mass torts confront in the federal courts? and (3) What is the alternative to adjudicating mass torts in the federal courts? Audience questions raised the delegation issue inherent in the fund approach: is it a good idea to delegate all of that authority to one person to resolve mass tort claims including the amount of payment?

 

Corodemus

The Honorable Marina Corodemus (ret). shared "A View from the Bench" based on her perspective as New Jersey's sole mass torts judge for over ten years. Judge Corodemus discussed her experiences in trying to coordinate mass tort cases with federal judges handling MDLs as well as other state court judges. She concluded by identifying two problems for the future: (1) the increasing number of mass tort claims and (2) the shrinking budgets of the state court system.

 

 

 

In tomorrow's post, I will describe the three panel presentations.

- SBS

February 29, 2012 in Conferences, MDLs and Class Actions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, February 6, 2012

Hylton on Zipursky on the "New Private Law"

Keith Hylton (Boston University) has posted to SSRN New Private Law Theory and Tort Law:  A Comment.  The abstract provides:

This comment was prepared for the Harvard Law Review symposium on “The New Private Law,” as a response to Benjamin Zipursky’s principal paper on torts. I find Zipursky’s reliance on Cardozo’s Palsgraf opinion as a foundational source of tort theory troubling, for two reasons. First, Cardozo fails to offer a consistent theoretical framework for tort law in his opinions, many of which are difficult to reconcile with one another. Second, Palsgraf should be understood as an effort by Cardozo to provide greater predictability, within a special class of proximate cause cases, by reallocating decision-making power from juries to judges. It was almost surely not an effort to set out a nonconsequentialist theory of tort law. While I agree with some of the goals of the new private law movement, much work remains to be done, within the methodological approach championed by Zipursky, in constructing a rigorous theoretical framework.

--CJR

February 6, 2012 in Conferences, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Rutgers-Camden Conference on Bad Faith

Last year, Rutgers-Camden became one of the few law schools to have 2 or more insurance experts on faculty when it hired Adam Scales (Jay Feinman has taught there for years).  Now the school continues its focus on insurance by hosting "Bad Faith and Beyond" on February 29th.  In addition to Adam and Jay, speakers include:  Ken Abraham, Tom Baker, Robert Jerry, Ellen Pryor, Doug Richmond, and Peter Siegelman.  Details are here.

--CJR

February 1, 2012 in Conferences | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Register for "Mass Torts in the Federal Courts" - Charleston, Feb. 24th

The Federal Courts Law Review at the Charleston School of Law is sponsoring a symposium on "Mass Torts in the Federal Courts" on February 24, 2012, in Charleston.

Ken Feinberg will be giving the keynote address. Panels will address preemption, aggregation issues in mass torts, and ethical issues surrounding fees and settlements in mass tort cases.   Speakers include Lynnn Baker (Texas), Alexandra Lahav (UConn), Linda Mullenix (Texas), Morris Ratner (Hastings), and Cathy Sharkey (NYU).

Registration is now open:  Download Mass Torts 2012 Registration Form

A copy of the agenda is also available:   Download SymposiumMailer-1-1

- SBS 

January 24, 2012 in Conferences | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Calnan: Four Quandaries for Civil Recourse Theory

Alan Calnan (Southwestern) offers the following post on civil recourse theory:

At the upcoming AALS conference, the Torts and Compensation Section will host a panel discussion on civil recourse theory entitled: Twenty-First Century Tort Theories: A New Audit of Civil Recourse Theory. In short, civil recourse theory holds that Torts is a system of constitutionally mandated (due process) rights permitting victims to sue for remedies to rectify legal wrongs. Although the proponents of this theory have elaborated its features in copious detail, they have yet to address several questions essential to its sustainability. Four questions, in particular, create especially troublesome quandaries. I pose these quandaries below in the hope of stimulating thought and discussion at January’s conference.

  1. How can civil recourse theory be viewed as an accurate, complete, and unified description of tort law when it ignores both the numerous instrumental (nonwrongs-based) theories of strict liability, and the pervasive instrumental (nonwrongs-based) considerations actively shaping and transforming wrongs-based theories like negligence?
  2. How can the right to sue (take recourse) in tort be premised on the existence of a legal wrong if (1) the determination of a legal wrong typically is not made until long after the action is filed, and (2) often (in at least 50% of tried cases) results in a finding that no wrong in fact was done?
  3. How can tort law best be understood as empowering victims to rectify civil wrongs (as stated in the panel summary) when the very purpose of both the law’s substance (which specifies things the plaintiff MUST prove to rectify a wrong) and its procedure (which specifies things the plaintiff MUST do to pursue such rectification) is to create impediments for the party seeking recourse and protections for the party being sued?
  4. How does the “constitutional” right to civil recourse square with the historic due process right to protect citizens from arbitrary state action, including presumably the state’s action of taking sides in a private dispute by hosting and facilitating one party’s unproven, liberty-infringing (civil) attack against another?

--CJR

December 21, 2011 in Conferences, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, November 25, 2011

Tort News from Europe

New books
 
Tort Law in the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR (ed A Fenyves et al) [read more] [publisher website]
Digest of European Tort Law, Vol 2 – Essential Cases on Damage (ed B Winiger et al) [read more] [publisher website]
European Tort Law Yearbook 2010 (ed H Koziol/BC Steininger) [read more] [publisher website]
 
Also published 2011
 
Medical Liability in Europe (ed BA Koch) [read more] [publisher website]
European Tort Law: Basic Texts (ed K Oliphant/BC Steininger) [read more] [publisher website]
 
11th Annual Conference on European Tort Law
  
The Annual Conference on European Tort Law provides practitioners and academics with information about the most significant tort law developments in Europe in the preceding year. Next year's conference will take place in Vienna from Thursday, April 12 to Saturday April 14, 2012. [read more] Details of the full conference programme will be provided shortly.
 
Thanks to Ken Oliphant for the tip.
 
--CJR

November 25, 2011 in Conferences, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, November 18, 2011

Indiana Law Journal to Publish AALS Torts Panel Pieces

The Indiana Law Journal will publish, in its volume 88, the articles written in conjunction with the AALS Torts & Compensation Section panel ("Twenty-First Century Tort Theories:  A New Audit of Civil Recourse Theory") at the 2012 Annual Meeting in D.C.

--CJR

November 18, 2011 in Conferences, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Torts at AALS

The Torts & Compensation System section of AALS has announced its program for the 2012 conference, and it features our very own Chris Robinette.  Here's the description:

9:00 AM - 12:00 PM January 5
[4150] Section on Torts and Compensation Systems
Maryland Suite A, Lobby Level, Washington Marriott Wardman Park Hotel
 
Twenty-First Century Tort Theories: A New Audit of Civil Recourse Theory
 
Moderator: Michael L. Rustad, Suffolk University Law School
Speakers: Guido Calabresi, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, New York, NY
Martha E. Chamallas, The Ohio State University, Michael E. Moritz College of Law
John C. Goldberg, Harvard Law School
Christopher J. Robinette, Widener University School of Law
Benjamin C. Zipursky, Fordham University School of Law
 
Recently, civil recourse theory has emerged as an attempt to unify tort law around the concept of private wrongs. By arguing that the point of tort law is to empower victims to rectify civil wrongs against them, civil recourse theory offers an elegant means to reduce the plurality of theories that have dominated tort scholarship since the 1970’s. This panel will explore the implications of paring down tort law to civil recourse. Professors Goldberg and Zipursky, who have been pioneers in developing civil recourse theory, will present the concepts and methods of this theory. Judge Calabresi, the 2010 Prosser Award recipient, will explore the implications of deemphasizing loss spreading and deterrence. Professor Chamallas will examine civil recourse theory drawing upon her work on how race, gender, and class interrelate with tort law developments. Finally, Professor Robinette will address the question of whether civil recourse can unify the law focusing on whether it is a complete account. Panelists will also address whether tort law should have a public
purpose beyond civil recourse.
 
Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

--BC (who will, alas, be in Orlando to run the Disney Half Marathon that weekend)

October 27, 2011 in Conferences, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Judge Posner to Receive 2012 Prosser Award

From the AALS Torts and Compensation Section's Executive Committee: 

 The William Prosser award will be presented at our Section meeting on January 5, 2012 at 9-12 pm.  The Prosser Award was created and presented to its first recipient, Leon Green, in 1974. Later awardees included Fleming James Jr., Wex Malone, W. Page Keeton, John Wade and Willard Pedrick.  More recent honorees include Dan B. Dobbs, Guido Calabresi, Oscar Gray, and Robert Rabin.

 
 When Wex Malone bestowed the first Prosser award upon Leon Green, Malone remarked that the award “is designed to recognize a lifetime of truly outstanding contribution to the world of Torts.”

This year’s honoree – the Hon. Richard A. Posner, Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School-has authored academic works as well as judicial opinions that have reshaped the way we think and teach about tort law.   One nominator wrote that “Judge Posner returned Torts to its special position as one of the most exciting, intellectually challenging, and magnetic fields of study in all of the legal academy.” Judge Posner’s writings provide law teachers and scholars with an analytical framework to approach many tort law issues.   A nominator mentioned how Posner developed a grand theory of tort law beginning with his 1972 article, “A Theory of Negligence.” Judge Posner’s judicial opinions and academic writing have reshaped the way torts teacher teach and think about setting the standard of care.   
 
 First year law students learn the law and economics perspective on tort law through appellate cases authored by Judge Richard Posner.  A nominator described Judge Posner as having the “Holmesian gift of utilizing the sharp tools of a brilliant academic mind to craft insightful and eloquent judicial opinions.”
           
 The Executive Committee would like to extend our congratulations to our respected colleague whose doctrinal and theoretical work has been so influential.  We would also like to acknowledge his role as a mentor to younger torts scholars and teachers.
  
--CJR

October 18, 2011 in Conferences, TortsProfs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, October 17, 2011

Gender & Torts Scholarship

Bridget Crawford posts, at Feminst Law Professors, asking where the women are in a recent torts symposium published by the William Mitchell Law Review (in which one out of fourteen participants is female), and links to a 2009 post from Ann Bartow noting another symposium with zero female participants.

--BC

October 17, 2011 in Conferences, Current Affairs, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)