Friday, January 29, 2016
Monday, January 18, 2016
At Torts Today, George Conk has posted a piece by David Schorr (Tel Aviv University) on Holmes's decision in Missouri v. Illinois (1906), in which Missouri sued Illinois for Chicago's reversal of the Chicago River. Holmes ruled for Missouri essentially on causation (and Schorr argues, a bit of distributive justice).
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
I referenced the Feres Doctrine yesterday. Over at Bill of Health, there is a post about an amicus brief filed by Alex Stein and Dov Fox urging the Supreme Court to grant cert in a Tenth Circuit case, Ortiz v. U.S.:
When a civilian spouse of a serviceman receives negligent prenatal care from military doctors and delivers an injured baby as a result of that malpractice, there is no question that Feres immunity does not apply and that the baby can sue the United States under the FTCA. When military medical malpractice injures the baby of a servicewoman, this baby should be equally able to obtain redress under the FTCA. A system that would single out the civilian children of servicewomen for adverse treatment discriminates against women who serve in the armed forces. . . To interpret the FTCA as the Tenth Circuit did permits discrimination between these two classes of similarly situated victims of military malpractice and violates fundamental principles of equal protection.
The brief is here: Download OrtizAmicusSteinFox
Thursday, November 19, 2015
On Monday, I posted about defendants attempting to use med mal tort reform protections to make it harder to recover for falls in hospitals. In a similar vein is a recent Alabama case in which a doctor attempted to invoke a prohibition against discovering and introducing at trial evidence of other malpractice to avoid the admission of the evidence as modus operandi (FRE 404(b)(2) or state equivalent). The claim, however, was that the doctor had sexually assaulted the plaintiff during the course of medical treatment. In Ex parte Vanderwall, — So.3d —- 2015 WL 5725153 (Ala. 2015), the Alabama Supreme Court held the prohibition only applies in med mal cases, which do not include cases of sexual assault. The plaintiff was, therefore, able to use past instances of sexual misconduct incidental to medical treatment as proof that the doctor responsible for that misconduct assaulted her as well. Alex Stein has more blogging at Harvard's Bill of Health.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Friday, November 6, 2015
Antonin I. Pribetic (Himelfarb Proszanski) and Marc J. Randazza (Randazza Legal Group) have posted to SSRN 'War of the Words': Differing Canadian and American Approaches to Internet Defamation. The abstract provides:
This article provides a comparative analysis of differing approaches to Canadian and American internet defamation law. It begins with a discussion of the elements of a cause of action and available defences. It then canvasses jurisdiction and choice of law issues. Following a review of notice requirements and limitation periods, it provides the mechanics for unmasking anonymous defendants – John Doe applications, Norwich Pharmacal orders, injunctive relief. Finally, the paper outlines the key legal issues in the recognition and enforcement of Canadian and American cyberlibel judgments abroad, within the context of the libel tourism debate.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Friday, August 28, 2015
Over at New Private Law, there are two recent torts posts:
Monday, August 3, 2015
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Friday, May 8, 2015
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
John Goldberg and Henry Smith have launched New Private Law: Project on the Foundations of Private Law as a group blog. As advertised, private law broadly, including contracts and property, is covered. Torts enthusiasts should be cheered by the presence of not only Goldberg, but Keith Hylton, Tony Sebok, and Ben Zipursky as well. Check it out!
Friday, April 3, 2015
Friday, March 13, 2015
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Over at Save Our Juries, Suja Thomas (Illinois) has a post about the role of discovery in the GM ignition litigation and a proposal to change the discovery rules. Pursuant to the proposed rule, parties would be able to resist discovery on the grounds that the request is not "proportional" to "the needs of the case."
Thursday, February 12, 2015