TortsProf Blog

Editor: Christopher J. Robinette
Widener Commonwealth Law School

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Hylton on Patent Infringement Damages

Keith Hylton has posted to SSRN Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement:  A Normative Approach.  The abstract provides:

In Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics the Supreme Court granted greater discretion to lower courts to enhance damages for patent infringement. This paper takes a normative approach to patent infringement damages. Its underlying premise is that the goal of a damages regime should be to maximize society’s welfare. Patent damages should therefore balance society’s interest in encouraging innovation against the need to regulate infringement incentives. Although the analysis here is mostly normative and draws heavily on the economic theory of penalties, the aim of this paper is to provide a set of practical guidelines courts can follow in explaining, justifying, and developing rules to structure the discretion that Halo has returned to them.

August 23, 2016 in Damages, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, August 22, 2016

JOTWELL Torts: Bublick on Nolan on Preventive Damages

Over at JOTWELL, Ellie Bublick reviews Donal Nolan's Preventive Damages.

August 22, 2016 in Scholarship, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, August 18, 2016

PA: Dispute Over Products Jury Instructions

In late 2014, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided Tincher v. Omega Flex, overruling several unusual aspects of state law and declining to adopt R3.  The case created a lot of uncertainty, which has been compounded by recent turnover on the court.  This summer, the civil instructions subcommittee of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee for Proposed Standard Jury Instructions unveiled the first changes to standard products jury instructions in forty years.  The defense bar and manufacturers are not happy.  In a ten-page letter (Download DC-#626926-v1-Pa__jury_instruction_protest_letter_2016)  sent to the subcommittee's chair, partners from multiple law firms and twenty companies, including Johnson & Johnson; Pfizer Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline; Ford; Shell Oil, and Eli Lilly, raised objections to the proposed standard jury instructions.  The Legal Intelligencer reports:

Chief among those issues, the defense bar said, is the update's failure to include any mention of the requirement under Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts that a product defect must be "unreasonably dangerous" to support strict liability. The instructions are inconsistent with Tincher's adoption of the "prevailing standard of proof" reflected in the jury instructions of most states that follow Section 402A, and should be rewritten to include an instruction on the issue, the letter said.

The subcommittee chair responded that the subcommittee had taken all perspectives into account when crafting the revisions, but would nevertheless review the proposed instructions again at its next meeting.  The full article (behind a free sign-up wall) is here.

August 18, 2016 in Current Affairs, Products Liability | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, August 15, 2016

NE: Eggshell Plaintiff, Workers' Comp, Battery, and Tort Claims Act

Here is a classic eggshell plaintiff case in which one officer (Lancaster County) gave another (City of Lincoln) a friendly punch on the shoulder in greeting, without knowing that the recipient had recently undergone rotator cuff surgery. The result was $63,418 in medical bills, covered by workers' comp. The City of Lincoln sued Lancaster County for indemnification, but a district judge determined that the punch was an intentional tort (battery) rather than negligence, therefore immunizing Lancaster County from liability under Nebraska's municipal tort claims act.  The Lincoln Journal Star has details.

August 15, 2016 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, August 8, 2016

Turton: Evidential Uncertainty in Causation in Negligence

Hart Publishing has just released Gemma Turton's Evidential Uncertainty in Causation in Negligence.  The blurb:

This book undertakes an analysis of academic and judicial responses to the problem of evidential uncertainty in causation in negligence. It seeks to bring clarity to what has become a notoriously complex area by adopting a clear approach to the function of the doctrine of causation within a corrective justice-based account of negligence liability. It first explores basic causal models and issues of proof, including the role of statistical and epidemiological evidence, in order to isolate the problem of evidential uncertainty more precisely. Application of Richard Wright's NESS test to a range of English case law shows it to be more comprehensive than the 'but for' test that currently dominates, thereby reducing the need to resort to additional tests, such as the Wardlaw test of material contribution to harm, the scope and meaning of which are uncertain. The book builds on this foundation to explore the solution to a range of problems of evidential uncertainty, focusing on the Fairchild principle and the idea of risk as damage, as well as the notion of loss of a chance in medical negligence which is often seen as analogous with 'increase in risk', in an attempt to bring coherence to this area of the law.

A flyer (with discount) is here:  Download Turton

August 8, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, August 5, 2016

Dillbary, Edwards & Vars on the Costs of Suicide

Shahar Dillbary, Griffin Edwards, and Fredrick Vars have posted to SSRN The Costs of Suicide.  The abstract provides:

This article is the first to empirically analyze the impact of tort liability on suicide. Counter-intuitively, our analysis shows that suicide rates increase when potential tort liability is expanded to include psychiatrists—the very defendants who would seem best able to prevent suicide. Using a 50-state panel regression for 1981 to 2013, we find that states that would hold liable psychiatrists (but not other doctors) for malpractice resulting in a suicide experienced a 12.8% increase in suicides. The effect is even stronger, 16.8%, when we include controls. We do not believe this is because suicide prevention doesn’t work. Rather, we theorize that it is because some psychiatrists facing potential liability choose not to work with patients at high risk for suicide. The article makes an important contribution to the law of proximate cause. Traditionally, one could not be liable for malpractice that causes another’s suicide—the suicide was considered a superseding and intervening cause. About half of states retain the old common law rule. Others have created exceptions for psychiatrists only, or for all doctors, and some have abandoned the old rule entirely. Our findings suggest that expanding liability for psychiatrists may have an adverse affect. Accordingly, this article suggests that the best policy might be to retain or revive the traditional no-liability-for-suicide rule for mental health specialists. The implications are enormous: over 40,000 people in the United States die each year from suicide.

August 5, 2016 in Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (1)

Thursday, August 4, 2016

TX: General Contractor Not a "Seller" for Purposes of Products Liability Indemnification

Many jurisdictions have enacted protections for "innocent" sellers of products found to be defective in an attempt to place the burden of compensation on the party with (the most) fault, generally the manufacturer.  Texas has a statute allowing an innocent seller to receive indemnification.  A general contractor incorporated a defective roof truss into its project and the issue arose whether the contractor was a "seller" for purposes of the statute.  The court ruled it was not, as it was not in the business of selling roof trusses, rather the provision of roof trusses was incidental to its general construction services.  Jones Day's website has details

August 4, 2016 in Products Liability | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

CT: Workers Comp Bars Bystander Emotional Distress Claims

On Monday, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a woman who found her husband crushed to death shortly after a large ATV fell on him cannot sue his employer for bystander emotional distress.  She recovered pursuant to the state's workers comp statute.  The Hartford Courant has the story.

August 3, 2016 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Schwarcz on a Unified Theory of Insurance Law

Daniel Schwarcz has posted to SSRN A Unified Theory of Insurance Law:  The Clarification, Production, and Dissemination of Coverage Information.  The abstract provides:

The central goal of insurance law is to clarify, produce, and disseminate information about the scope of insurers’ coverage obligations to policyholders. This Article examines how insurance law and regulation seek to achieve these objectives, and to what ends. To do so, it distinguishes among three different types of coverage information: (i) purchaser information, or coverage information that is communicated to policyholders at the time they purchase coverage; (ii) policy information, or coverage information that is contained within the four corners of the insurance policy; and (iii) judicial information, which is coverage information that is ascertainable only after researching judicial opinions resolving coverage disputes. The Article shows how each of these three forms of coverage information can promote more efficient insurance markets, frequently in ways that are largely overlooked or under-appreciated by courts and commentators. This framework not only helps illuminate the underlying structure of insurance law. It also sheds new light on various long-standing disputes in the field, which often require prioritization and trade-offs among the three different types of coverage information. For instance, the Article suggests that one important reason for embracing a sophisticated policyholder exception to the ambiguity rule is that doing so produces judicial information at the expense of policy information, a sensible tradeoff with respect to sophisticated policyholders. Similarly, the Article argues that, contrary to the ordinary rule, courts should generally refuse to admit extrinsic evidence to disambiguate policy language when it comes to consumer-oriented policies, because doing so can undermine the production of policy information when purchaser information is present. Yet these two types of information serve very different purposes in the insurance context. More generally, the Article suggests that a substantial number of perennial disputes in insurance law can be helpfully analyzed by reference to their impact on purchaser information, policy information, and judicial information.

August 2, 2016 in Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, August 1, 2016

Steinitz & Gowder on Transnational Litigation as Prisoner's Dilemma

Maya Steinitz and Paul Gowder have posted to SSRN Transnational Litigation as a Prisoner's Dilemma.  The abstract provides:

In this Article we use game theory to argue that perceptions of widespread corruption in the judicial processes in developing countries create ex ante incentives to act corruptly. It is rational (though not moral) to preemptively act corruptly when litigating in the courts of many developing nations. The upshot of this analysis is to highlight that, contrary to judicial narratives in individual cases — such as the (in)famous Chevron–Ecuador dispute used herein as an illustration — the problem of corruption in transnational litigation is structural and as such calls for structural solutions. The article offers one such solution: the establishment of an international court of civil justice.

August 1, 2016 in Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Procter & Gamble's Products Liability Exposure

Dan Monk at WCPO in Cincinnati has written an article about P&G's products exposure.  Monk finds suits against 9 of P&G's products (they have between 100 and 200 products).  He chronicles the various cases against such brands as Tide Pods, Old Spice, and Charmin.   

July 28, 2016 in Products Liability | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Hnylka on Recklessness in Sports Injury Litigation in California

Joseph Hnylka has posted to SSRN California Drops the Ball:  The Lack of a Clear Approach to Recklessness in Sports Injury Litigation.  The abstract provides:

California jurisprudence lacks a uniform, clear, and manageable approach to recklessness in sport injury cases. In Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (1992), the California Supreme Court adopted a unique “duty” approach for primary assumption of risk cases involving sports. The Court ruled that a plaintiff’s subjective knowledge and awareness of risks were irrelevant. Instead, the Court noted that the focus of the inquiry should be whether “in light of the nature of the sporting activity in which defendant and plaintiff were engaged, defendant’s conduct breached a legal duty of care to plaintiff.” Under the new duty approach, although there is no duty to protect a plaintiff from risks inherent in the sport itself, participants, coaches, and instructors will be liable for intentionally injuring the plaintiff or engaging in conduct that is “so reckless as to be totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport.” In the past two decades, California recklessness cases involving coaches and sport participants have become confusing. Courts lack a uniform approach and continue to apply different standards for recklessness.

First, courts have difficulty applying the California Supreme Court’s definition of recklessness, which requires courts to determine whether conduct is “totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport.” This standard provides no guidance to the court or to the trier of fact who must distinguish reckless conduct from negligent or careless conduct.

Second, courts are confused by the relationship between the concepts of recklessness and inherent risk. The concept of inherent risk is critical to the application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine. Inherent risk defines duty, and a defendant has no duty to protect plaintiff from risks inherent in the sport. However, because recklessness requires conduct “totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport,” does a finding that plaintiff was injured by a risk inherent in the sport preclude a finding of recklessness? When a court rules that a risk is not inherent, is the court also saying the risk is “totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport”?

Third, California’s courts are confused by the relationship, if any, between recklessness and the defendant’s duty not to increase the risk. Are these duties essentially the same when defendant is a coach or sport participant? If not, may courts and plaintiff’s attorneys use the duty not to increase the risk as a vehicle to bypass the intentional/reckless standard and instead apply a negligence standard to coaches and participants in sport injury cases?

Fourth, some courts of appeal, perhaps frustrated by the lack of a clear standard for recklessness, have traveled beyond the California Supreme Court’s recklessness definition and have used different standards to determine whether a defendant’s conduct was reckless. Some courts have used the Restatement of Torts to define recklessness in sports injury cases. Other courts have used a policy-based test for recklessness.

The confusion can be significantly decreased, and perhaps eliminated, if the courts adopt a uniform, policy-based approach to inherent risk and use the Restatement standard for recklessness in sport injury cases. Under the policy-based approach to inherent risk, a risk is inherent if the prohibition of the defendant’s conduct would neither chill vigorous participation in the sport or activity nor alter the nature of the sport or activity. California courts also should use the Restatement standard for recklessness in sport injury cases. The Restatement approach can be used as a recklessness standard in sport injury cases without difficulty if the question of recklessness is raised, as it should be, after the court has applied the policy-based test for inherent risk, suggested above. Finally, the courts should abandon the defendant’s duty not to increase the risk beyond what is inherent in a sport. The duty not to increase the risk is unnecessary and only increases confusion.

July 27, 2016 in Scholarship, Sports | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, July 22, 2016

Teaching Single Versus Dual Intent

I had an inquiry about teaching single and dual intent for battery and I want to appeal for your collective wisdom.  About the time I started teaching there was a robust list-serv discussion on this topic that I found helpful.  Given that the ALI is working on the Restatement of Intentional Torts right now, many of you may have thought about this recently.  I take the inquiry to be more about pedagogy than doctrine, but all tips are welcome.  How do you teach single versus dual intent?  How do you integrate it with purpose and substantial certainty?  Do you recommend any good sources for students?  Thanks!

July 22, 2016 in Teaching Torts | Permalink | Comments (4)

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Central States Law School Association Conference

From Chris Odinet at PropertyProf Blog:


Registration is now open for the Central States Law Schools Association 2016 Scholarship Conference, which will be held on Friday, September 23 and Saturday, September 24 at the University of North Dakota School of Law in Grand Forks, ND. We invite law faculty from across the country to submit proposals to present papers or works in progress.
CSLSA is an organization of law schools dedicated to providing a forum for conversation and collaboration among law school academics. The CSLSA Annual Conference is an opportunity for legal scholars, especially more junior scholars, to present on any law-related topic in a relaxed and supportive setting where junior and senior scholars from various disciplines are available to comment. More mature scholars have an opportunity to test new ideas in a less formal setting than is generally available for their work. Scholars from member and nonmember schools are invited to attend. 

Please click here to register. The deadline for registration is September 2, 2016.  

Hotel rooms are now available for pre-booking. The conference hotel is the Hilton Garden Inn in Grand Forks. The hotel phone number is (701) 775-6000. When booking, identify yourself as part of the “UND School of Law” block to receive a daily rate of $89. Please note that conference participants are responsible for all of their own travel expenses including hotel accommodations.

For more information about CSLSA and the 2016 Annual Conference please subscribe to our blog.
We look forward to seeing you in Grand Forks!


The 2016 CSLSA Board
For more information about CSLSA, visit our website at or contact a board member.

July 20, 2016 in Conferences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

USSC: ERISA Reimbursement Liens Only Enforceable Against Traceable Assets

In Montanile v. National Elevator, the Court held, 8-1, that an ERISA health benefit plan could not enforce its reimbursement lien created by contract against a member's general assets.  The lien is only enforceable against specifically identifiable (traceable) funds within the plan member's possession at the time enforcement is sought.  ABA Health eSource has the story.

Thanks to Bob Bohrer for the tip. 

July 19, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, July 18, 2016

Most-Cited Torts/Products Liability Scholars (2010-2014)

Brian Leiter has posted the most-cited torts and products liability scholars in the period 2010-2014.  The data is drawn from a 2015 study led by Gregory Sisk.





Age in 2016


John C.P. Goldberg

Harvard University




Benjamin Zipursky

Fordham University




Tom Baker

University of Pennsylvania




Robert Rabin

Stanford University




Catherine Sharkey

New York University




Kenneth Abraham

University of Virginia




Anita Bernstein

Brooklyn Law School




Stephen Sugarman

University of California, Berkeley




David Rosenberg

Harvard University


73 (est.)


Michael Green

Wake Forest University




Other highly-cited scholars who work partly in these areas


Richard Epstein

New York University; University of Chicago




Steven Shavell

Harvard University




Saul Levmore

University of Chicago




Keith Hylton

Boston University



July 18, 2016 in Scholarship, TortsProfs | Permalink | Comments (0)

OH: DuPont Loses "C8" Suit

DuPont has been defending multiple lawsuits over C8, a detergent-like chemical used to make Teflon at a DuPont plant in West Virginia.  DuPont released C8 into the Ohio River and approximately 3,500 plaintiffs from river towns in Ohio and West Virginia allege C8 has caused various types of cancer.  Earlier this month, a jury in Columbus found that DuPont acted with malice when it dumped C8 into the river and awarded a plaintiff with testicular cancer $500,000 in punitive damages.  The Columbus Dispatch has coverage here and here.  

July 18, 2016 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, July 15, 2016

OT: An Appreciation of Tim Duncan at His Retirement

My heroes are family members, some friends, and an occasional religious, political, or academic figure.  I enjoy sports but I don't engage in hero worship of athletes.  There is, however, one exception:  Timothy Theodore Duncan.  Through an announcement put out by his team, the San Antonio Spurs, Timmy retired on Monday after 19 seasons in the NBA. 

His individual accomplishments are legion and have secured for him wide acknowledgment as the best power forward to ever play basketball.  Selected first in the 1997 draft, Timmy earned the Rookie of the Year award in 1998.  Timmy was named All-NBA a record-tying 15 times, was the league MVP twice (2002, 2003), and was the Finals MVP three times (1999, 2003, 2005).  Unlike many modern players, Timmy was at least as focused on defense as offense; he was named to the NBA All-Defensive Team a record 15 times.  Timmy is one of only two players in NBA history (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) to record at least 26,000 points, 15,000 rebounds, and 3,000 blocked shots. 

One of the things that made Timmy so special was that his individual accomplishments were nowhere near as important to him as team wins.  He made that clear in every way possible, including taking salary reductions to recruit other players and accepting a reduced role to allow those players to flourish.  It paid off in spades.  Timmy's Spurs won 5 national titles (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2014).  Timmy is one of only three players in NBA history to win over 1,000 games, and the only one to do so with a single team.  His consistency and longevity while winning is astonishing.  He is the only NBA player to start on teams that won titles in three different decades.  Timmy's Spurs posted at least a .600 winning percentage in each of his 19 seasons.  During his tenure, the Spurs had a .710 winning percentage, which is the best 19-year stretch in NBA history and was the best in all of the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB over the last 19 seasons. 

What truly sets him apart, though, is how he carried himself during this dominance.  To begin, there are the things Timmy did not do.  There were no Tim Duncan scandals.  He was not arrested.  He never embarrassed himself or his team.  Instead, he dedicated himself to his craft.  Much of modern sports elevates style over substance.  Flashy plays garner a player a spot on ESPN's "Top 10 Plays of the Day".  In this world, Timmy focused on the fundamentals and defense.  His trademark shot was not a vicious dunk, but a bank shot.  Shaquille O'Neal, fond of nicknames, dubbed Timmy the "Big Fundamental".  His discipline was legendary.  During hot San Antonio summers, he worked out relentlessly to be ready for the next season.  As he aged, he lost dozens of pounds to keep the strain off his knees and extend his career. 

In an era when almost everyone screams for attention, Timmy was old fashioned.  He didn't need attention.  He wanted to do a good job and win games.  He preferred that attention went to others.  In 2003, the Spurs beat the Nets in 6 games to win the NBA Finals.  Timmy was a monster in the final game, nearly earning a quadruple double.  He had 21 points, 20 rebounds, 10 assists, and 8 blocked shots.  His teammate, David Robinson, had just played his last game and the two of them were being interviewed by a reporter.  Timmy made a brief, polite comment, got up, slapped Robinson on the shoulders and walked off.  The message was clear:  talk to David Robinson, not me. 

This, perhaps, is the most unusual of Timmy's traits.  Contrary to his bland public image, he has a rich personal life.  He is a terrific practical joker.  He dotes on his children.  He practices martial arts.  He loves comic books and video games.  He owns his own car shop.  He doesn't talk about these things, or speaks of them only rarely, for two reasons.  First, Timmy is a humble man.  He doesn't understand why people would care about his personal life.  Second, he has an admirable sense of the private sphere.  Even if people want to know more about him, he understands that some parts of yourself should be reserved for loved ones.  

Timmy cared about his teammates.  He was the last player to leave the floor, waiting until everyone else headed for the locker room.  He wanted to make sure everyone was okay.  He cared about people, generally.  He once spent $12,000 to save the life of a stranger's dog.  The essence of the man is best summed up by those who played with and against him:

Steve Kerr (former teammate and current coach of the Golden State Warriors):  "One of the best teammates I ever had.  Incredibly confident with his game but humble with his approach, always taking the criticism for the rest of us.  He'd come into the locker room after a loss and he'd say, 'My fault,'and you'd look at the stats and he's got 38 points and 24 rebounds.  Pretty sure it wasn't your fault, Tim."

Tony Massenburg (former reserve teammate; played on 12 NBA teams):  "This is the first team I've been on where everybody is treated the same.  Usually a coach will yell at the man next to The Man to make his point.  Pop (the coach) gets in Tim's face and Tim takes it.  That lets everyone know that when Pop chews you out, it's strictly about what you need to do to get better.  He can do that because of Tim--the most laid-back superstar I've ever known."

Shaquille O'Neal (former rival):  "The Spurs won because of Tim Duncan, a guy I could never break.  I could talk trash to Patrick Ewing, get in David Robinson's face, get a rise out of Alonzo Mourning, but when I went at Tim he'd look at me like he was bored."

Draymond Green (former rival):  “I do have a Tim Duncan story. My rookie year I kind of talked junk to everybody. In the middle of the game I started talking to Tim, and I had already got into it with somebody on their team. I don’t remember who it was. But I started talking to Tim and he kind of just stared at me. I just kept talking junk to him and he kept staring at me.  At that point I realized during the rest of my career that I might as well not talk to him. Either, one, he is not going to talk back because he has no respect for me. Or, two, he is not going to talk back because that is who he is. Or, three, both. I figured then that was the last time I would talk junk to Tim. And that was the last time.”

Few athletes, few people, are worthy of the phrase "role model".  Timmy is.  The world would be a better place if people went about their jobs the way Timmy went about his.  He will be missed. 

July 15, 2016 in Sports | Permalink | Comments (0)

2d Cir: Tort Claims Can Proceed in GM Ignitition Switch Products Cases, Despite Bankruptcy

This week, the Second Circuit endorsed the general proposition that certain types of bankruptcy asset sales bar successor liability.  Regarding claims against GM based on ignition switch defects, however, the court ruled the 2009 bankruptcy of "Old GM" does not bar those cases against "New GM", the company that bought Old GM's assets.  The court based its ruling on the fact GM hid the defect at the time of the bankruptcy proceeding.  The New York Times has more

July 15, 2016 in Products Liability | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Products Liability as a Capstone Course

As I wrote last month, I am teaching Products Liability this summer.  It has been over 4 years since I last taught it; the last time through, the course was a 2-credit, paper course.  I am now teaching a 3-credit, exam course.

Perhaps I wasn't thinking in these terms in 2012, but I am struck this time through by how well Products could serve as a capstone course, roughly understood as a culminating course that integrates multiple subject areas.  Obviously, Products is heavily tort-oriented.  One of the common causes of action for an injury by product is negligence, and that is covered (again), including duty, breach, causation, damages, and defenses.  Of course, the sales concept of warranty is thoroughly covered.  But there is more.  A lot of evidence concepts are reviewed, such as Daubert, subsequent remedial measures, admissibility for injuries in the same or similar circumstances, and the burden of proof.  Administrative law is covered because of the regulations passed by agencies and their effect on private litigation (including preemption, which has a connection to constitutional law).  Civil procedure is also touched upon in the form of statutes of limitations, statutes of repose, and the discovery rule. 

As a whole, the course requires students to connect areas of practice to one another, which I think is extremely beneficial.  That is, of course, how they will function in practice.  The course also reviews a number of concepts they will soon face on the bar, including the specific MBE questions about products liability, often given little to no attention in the basic Torts course due to time constraints.     

July 12, 2016 in Teaching Torts | Permalink | Comments (2)