Monday, October 23, 2017
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
Lisa Laplante has posted to SSRN Human Torts. The abstract provides:
Human Torts is the first article to describe how ordinary municipal tort lawsuits in the United States provide essential remedies for human rights abuses. Despite the rising level of hate crimes, bullying, corporate malfeasance, and other private acts that result in great harm and can lead to civil litigation, American scholars have never explored how everyday tort claims grounded in purely domestic common law doctrine between private, non-state actors are in fact human rights claims even if never pleaded as such in U.S. courts. Framing tort litigation as a form of human rights protection may appear to be a novel aspirational proposal, but comparative law reveals that most countries in the world follow this horizontal approach. Strikingly, a close look at the genealogy of tort law indicates that the United States also once did the same. Only in the last half century has the focus on rights been eclipsed due to the imposition of an instrumental, economic account of tort law that seeks to balance the costs of human interactions at the risk of commodifying the value of life. In response, this Article proposes practical ways to reintegrate the rights perspective into tort law. In doing so, it presents a “progressive” view of torts in a world in which private actors wield great power yet are not held sufficiently accountable for the harms they cause to innocent individuals and communities.
Friday, October 13, 2017
We have heard a lot about technology changing tort law in the form of autonomous vehicles. Now Giant Foods is experimenting with a roving robot in its grocery stores. "Marty" has a number of skills: he can check prices and help with stocking. His main job, however, is to scan the aisles for potential slip hazards on the floor. If the technology is successful, we may have safer stores and fewer tort cases. PennLive has the story. Youtube has video.
Thursday, October 12, 2017
A study (with a small sample) published in JAMA Internal Medicine found the majority of patients satisfied with communication-and-resolution programs, a more cooperative alternative to litigation in the med mal context. Only 2 of the 40 patients interviewed felt the process was "unfair".
When it came to compensation, 16 of the 27 patients and family members who received any compensation were satisfied. Those who were not satisfied with the compensation tended to be dissatisfied with the overall communication process.
AJMC.com has more details.
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Witnesses to the mass shooting in Las Vegas have filed a would-be class action lawsuit against manufacturers of bump stocks, the device used by shooter Stephen Paddock to accelerate gunfire from his semi-automatic weapon. Causes of action include negligence, infliction of emotional distress, products liability, and public nuisance. The suit seeks a court-supervised psychological monitoring program for the class plaintiffs, paid for by defendants, as well as punitive damages. The ABA Journal has details.
Do bump stocks fall under the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act? Bloomberg
Monday, October 9, 2017
Leslie Kendrick has posted to SSRN Free Speech as a Special Right. The abstract provides:
Many theorists treat free speech as a special right. Other theorists argue that, in order for free speech to be important, it must be a special right, but they conclude that it is not. What the term “special right” means in these contexts, however, remains elusive. The term usually suggests that the right in question is distinguishable from the usual governmental decision making processes and from other rights. But just how distinctive the right must be, and in what ways, is rarely defined clearly. Indeed, many discussions of free speech assume quite demanding criteria for a special right of freedom of speech, even as these criteria remain incompletely articulated.
This paper seeks to define the criteria for a special right. It argues that the idea of a special right actually conceals two separate requirements. First, a special right must be distinct, in that the activities covered by the right must be analytically distinguishable from the activities outside of it. Second, a special right must be robust in the protection it affords. Most theories demand that a free speech right be highly distinctive, if not singular, and that it receive highly robust protection. By contrast, this paper posits that distinctiveness is a requirement of a special right only to a minimal extent and robustness, as commonly understood, not at all. On the revised criteria offered here, it seems possible that speech may after all be special, though the free speech right we want may be different from the one we can have.
Thursday, October 5, 2017
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
The number of medical malpractice cases filed in Kansas between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017 increased to 276 from 248 the prior fiscal year. The number of cases filed in Kansas in the early 2000s hovered between 300 and 400. Many jurisdictions have seen years of decreases. Settlement figures are near a 10-year average. The Topeka Capital-Journal has details.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Val Joseph Corbett has posted to SSRN The Discount Rate & Periodic Payments in Tort Law. The abstract provides:
The ‘lump sum, once and for all’ method of payment of damages in tort law puts judges in the invidious position of having to put a financial value not only on the plaintiff’s current injuries but effectively requires them to peer into a crystal ball to ascertain the level of award that the plaintiff will require to sustain them for the rest of their lives while at the same time ensuing the award is not so excessive that it results in them receiving more than their due. In light of this background, it is the purpose of this article to critically review recent developments in the courts’ approach in Ireland and the UK in making such calculations and the impact of proposed legislation on the structure of the payment of damages awards in the form of periodic payments.
Friday, September 29, 2017
Nahel Asfour has published Wrongful Enrichment: A Study in Comparative Law and Culture (Hart Publishing). The blurb provides:
This book analyzes enrichment law, its development, and underpinning in social culture within three geographical regions: the United States, western members of the European Union, and the late Ottoman Empire. The regions chosen correspond, though imperfectly, with three different legal traditions, namely, the American, continental, and Islamic traditions. The book argues that we should understand law as a mimetic artefact. In so doing, it explains how typical patterns and exemplary articulations of wrongful enrichment law capture and reiterate vocal cultural themes found in the respective regions. Nahel Asfour identifies remarkable affinities between poetic tendencies, structures, and default dispositions of wrongful enrichment law and cultural world-views. Asfour offers bold accounts of each region's law and culture, providing fertile grounds for external and comparative elucidations of the legal doctrine. Revised Dissertation. (Series: International Studies in the Theory of Private Law) [Subject: Contract, Tort & Restitution Law; Comparative Law]
Thursday, September 28, 2017
The Washington Supreme Court let stand an appellate court decision rejecting a pet owner's claim to emotional distress damages for witnessing a difficult euthanasia. The American Veterinary Medical Association News has the story.
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Ronen Perry has posted to SSRN Crowdfunding Civil Justice. The abstract provides:
Crowdfunding—the aggregation of numerous but modest individual contributions through specialized online platforms—is a relatively new finance method. In the last few years, it has started its incursion into the realm of civil litigation funding. Three unrelated events, which took place in different jurisdictions in 2017, demonstrate this evolving trend and its potential impact. In the United States, the Southern Poverty Law Center included the political activist Maajid Nawaz on a list of “anti-Muslim extremists.” Nawaz launched an independent campaign for crowdfunding a defamation action against the organization. In the United Kingdom, a wildlife protection organization brought a defamation action against Andy Wightman, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, over his blog posts about the plaintiff’s practices. Wightman raised more than £60,000 through a British crowdfunding platform to fight this lawsuit. In Israel, the acclaimed journalist Igal Sarna was found liable in defamation for a Facebook post scorning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sarna raised over $45,000 through a crowdfunding website to cover his liability.
The Article provides a law and economics analysis of this emerging global trend, which may revolutionize the civil process in the near future. It argues, first, that the distinction between investment-based and non-investment-based crowdfunding models is crucial. In non-investment-based models, contributors expect only a non-monetary benefit (reward-based crowdfunding) or none at all (donation-based crowdfunding). In investment-based models, contributors expect financial return—a share in the fundraiser’s future gain (equity-crowdfunding) or repayment of the contribution with interest (debt-crowdfunding). The Article contends that investment-based litigation crowdfunding is generally a welcome phenomenon, because it enables parties to pursue meritorious claims and defenses without generating a significant risk of frivolous litigation. Thus, it should be minimally regulated by securing disclosure of relevant information to potential investors.
Non-investment-based litigation crowdfunding should be more constrained. The analysis entails a second fundamental distinction between process costs and outcome costs. Process costs are any outlays incurred by either party in relation to the dispute resolution process and prior to its conclusion. These may include court charges, attorneys’ fees, witnesses’ and experts’ expenditures and remuneration, etc. In cases of incapacitating injury, process costs may also include the claimant’s living expenses throughout the process. Outcome costs are the amounts payable under the settlement or the judgment. The Article contends that non-investment-based crowdfunding of process costs should be subject to professional vetting. This will inhibit frivolous claims and defenses that waste scarce administrative resources and do not further the underlying goals of civil law. Non-investment-based crowdfunding of outcome costs should be prohibited, because it undermines at least one of the primary objectives of substantive law.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Steve Sugarman has posted to SSRN Restating the Tort of Battery. The abstract provides:
This article offers a bold proposal: eliminate the intentional tort of battery and merge cases of both the negligent and intentional imposition of physical harm into a single new tort. The advantages of a single tort of wrongfully causing physical harm to persons are many. It would a) do away with complex and unneeded doctrinal details now contained within battery law, b) pave the way to a sensible regime of comparative fault for all such physical injuries, c) properly shift the legal focus away from the plaintiff’s conduct and onto the defendant’s, d) eliminate the Restatement’s need to supplement battery law with yet a separate intentional physical harm tort when an injury is intentionally caused but without the contact or other requirements of battery, and e) force courts to decide various collateral issues (like whether punitive damages are available or whether liability insurance coverage is applicable) on their own terms and not by linking them to whether this case involves a battery (and then making exceptions, since it turns out that battery is not a reliable basis for deciding those collateral matters). More broadly, the new tort is intellectually more insightful as it anchors acts that now count as batteries more in their wrongfulness than in their intentionality as battery law does today.
Friday, September 22, 2017
Nadia Sawicki has posted to SSRN Choosing Malpractice: A New Narrative for Limiting Physician Liability. The abstract provides:
Modern principles of patient autonomy and health care consumerism are at odds with medical malpractice law’s traditional skepticism towards the defenses of waiver and assumption of risk. Many American courts follow a patient-protective view, exemplified by the reasoning in the seminal Tunkl case, rejecting any attempts by physicians to relieve themselves of liability on the grounds of a patient’s agreement to assume the risk of malpractice. However, where patients pursue unconventional treatments that satisfy their personal preferences but that arguably fall outside the standard of care, courts have good reason to be more receptive to such defenses. This Article fills an important gap in the scholarly debate about whether patients and physicians should be able to contractually modify their default duties under tort law, demonstrating that two lines of rarely-acknowledged cases – dealing with experimental medical treatment and Jehovah’s Witness blood refusals – lend support to the principle that patients who choose malpractice should be limited in their right to tort recovery.
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Steve Sugarman has posted to SSRN Torts and Guns. This piece is an expansion of his remarks at last year's AALS Torts Section panel and will appear in volume 10:1 of the Journal of Tort Law. The abstract provides:
When Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders squabbled during their 2015-16 election campaigns over the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCCA), they were talking past each other, misleading their listeners, and failing to understand what this statute pre-empting some state tort claims against the gun industry was actually about. Many critics of PLCCA argue that gun makers and sellers should be liable just like those in the auto, pharmaceutical drug, and tobacco industries. Yet, it is very rare for defendants in those industries to be successfully sued in tort for the sort of conduct that gun control advocates would like to hold the gun industry liable. In contrast to the hopes and fears of Clinton and Sanders, repealing PLCCA would not likely result in a burst of successful lawsuits, although some might be winners. Perhaps potential and actual tort litigation against this industry is better understood as part of a longer term battle over public opinion and eventual legislative reform.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Mark Geistfeld has posted to SSRN Protecting Confidential Information Entrusted to Others in Business Transactions: Data Breaches, Identity Theft, and Tort Liability. The abstract provides:
Tort litigation over data breaches — defined here as the theft of one’s confidential information entrusted to another in a business transaction — most commonly involves the negligence cause of action. These claims turn on a number of issues that require searching analysis, including the manner in which the economic loss rule affects the tort duty, the relation between the negligence standard of care and strict liability, and the appropriate forms of compensable loss. Substantive analysis of these issues shows that they all can be resolved in favor of the negligence claim, which in turn justifies a rule of strict liability. The economic loss rule does not provide a substantive rationale for barring tort claims because customers do not have the information necessary to adequately protect their interests by contracting. Moreover, the common-law tort duty can be independently justified by the legislative policy decisions embodied in statutes that regulate data breaches. To prove a breach of the duty to exercise reasonable care, the victims of identity theft will often face considerable evidentiary difficulties stemming either from the complexity of data-security systems or the unreliability of other relevant evidence involving the conduct of defendant’s employees. For reasons recognized by tort law in analogous contexts, the evidentiary difficulties of proving negligence can justify a rule of strict liability for enforcing the tort duty to exercise reasonable care. Finally, the important forms of damages caused by identity theft — the cost of credit-monitoring services and the like, unauthorized charges, and any significant loss of time and emotional distress — are all compensable as a matter of basic tort principles. Strict tort liability in these cases ultimately finds justification in the important public policy of maintaining the integrity of market transactions.
Monday, September 18, 2017
Friday, September 15, 2017
Thursday, September 14, 2017
OH: Dram Shop Act is Sole Avenue to Recovery for Injuries Caused by an Establishment Furnishing Alcohol
At Legally Speaking Ohio, Marianna Brown Bettman analyzes a case handed down by the Ohio Supreme Court last week. The court held that the state's dram shop act precluded common law negligence liability for serving alcohol that causes injuries.
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Issue 2017:2 of the Journal of Tort Law is devoted to a symposium on the Restatement of Intentional Torts to Persons. Authors include Anita Bernstein, Ellie Bublick, Martha Chamallas, Nancy Moore, Steve Sugarman, and Richard Wright. The Reporters, Ken Simons and Jonathan Cardi, will draft a response. Mark Geistfeld's contribution to the issue, Conceptualizing the Intentional Torts, has just been posted to SSRN. The abstract provides:
According to the most recent draft of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Intentional Torts to Persons, the intentional torts protect the rightholder’s interests differently from negligence-based rules and strict liability, placing them into a distinct substantive category. This conceptualization, however, does not provide courts with adequate guidance on how to formulate the element of intent. Different formulations can protect the rightholder’s interests differently from negligence and strict liability, so something else must determine the appropriate way to formulate the element of intent.
The draft Restatement’s reasoning can be easily extended to provide a more useful conceptualization of the intentional torts. The practice of tort law involves the enforcement of behavioral norms, and so the substantive categories of tort law should correspond to normatively distinguishable categories of behavior. For tort purposes, three different paradigmatic forms of social behavior are relevant: aggressive interactions; interactions of mutual advantage; and the remaining nonaggressive, risk-creating interactions that are not motivated by an expectation of mutual benefit. Within this normative framework, the category of intentional torts is defined by aggressive interactions, which involve intentional harms that are normatively different from accidental harms. The intentional torts accordingly protect different interests in a distinctive manner as per the rationale in the draft Restatement.
This normative framework straightforwardly explains a number of established rules while also resolving two questions of intent that have vexed courts and commentators. Difficult issues of intent involve hard questions about how the conduct is best categorized for tort purposes. Once the categories have been conceptualized in behavioral terms, the element of intent has a clear substantive purpose: it determines whether or not an interaction is aggressive and properly governed by the intentional torts.