Journal of Tort Law最新文献

Against Harm: Keating on the Soul of Tort Law 反对伤害：基廷论侵权法的灵魂

Journal of Tort Law Pub Date : 2024-05-23 DOI: 10.1515/jtl-2024-2003

Jeffrey S. Helmreich

引用次数: 0

Situating Tort Law Within a Web of Institutions: Insights for the Age of Artificial Intelligence 将侵权法置于制度之网中：人工智能时代的启示

Journal of Tort Law Pub Date : 2024-05-23 DOI: 10.1515/jtl-2024-2002

María Guadalupe Martínez Alles

引用次数: 0

What We Talk About When We Talk About the Duty of Care in Negligence Law: The Utah Supreme Court Sets an Example in Boynton v. Kennecott Utah Copper 当我们谈论过失法中的注意义务时，我们谈论的是什么：犹他州最高法院在 Boynton 诉 Kennecott Utah Copper 案中树立了榜样

Journal of Tort Law Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI: 10.1515/jtl-2024-0004

Ellen M. Bublick

{"title":"What We Talk About When We Talk About the Duty of Care in Negligence Law: The Utah Supreme Court Sets an Example in Boynton v. Kennecott Utah Copper","authors":"Ellen M. Bublick","doi":"10.1515/jtl-2024-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2024-0004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Every day, state common law courts define the duty of care in negligence law. There is no formula for how courts should determine duty. Yet when judges are charged with important decisions about whether to open or shut the courthouse doors to whole categories of claimants, judges need some framework for decision. This article commends as an exemplar, the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Boynton v. Kennicott Utah Copper, a take-home asbestos exposure case. The power of Boynton is not only the answer it provides, but also the coherent framework for analysis that Justice Constandinos Himonas’ opinion sets forth. The opinion’s framework incorporates established principles as well as important tort policies such as harm prevention. Boynton’s structure at once provides the stability and consistency of precedent befitting common law adjudication while also incorporating the public policy and pragmatic concerns that have long guided tort law’s development. Boynton’s framework achieves a similar result to the one in the Third Restatement—creating duty and no-duty rules with possibility of exception based on principle and policy factors. However, Boynton does so through traditional terminology that has aquired meaning through repeated historical application. Courts, scholars and students would be well advised to examine the Utah Supreme Court’s approach to duty analysis.","PeriodicalId":39054,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Tort Law","volume":"2 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140354124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Liking the Intrusion Analysis in In Re Facebook 喜欢 In Re Facebook 案中的入侵分析

Journal of Tort Law Pub Date : 2024-03-25 DOI: 10.1515/jtl-2023-0044

Jane R. Bambauer

引用次数: 0

Disentangling Immigration Policy From Tort Claims for Future Lost Wages 移民政策与未来工资损失侵权索赔的分离

Journal of Tort Law Pub Date : 2024-02-28 DOI: 10.1515/jtl-2023-0024

Shefali Milczarek-Desai

引用次数: 0

Putting “Duty” Back on Track 让 "职责 "回归正轨

Journal of Tort Law Pub Date : 2024-02-26 DOI: 10.1515/jtl-2024-2001

Gregory C. Keating

{"title":"Putting “Duty” Back on Track","authors":"Gregory C. Keating","doi":"10.1515/jtl-2024-2001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2024-2001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 Brown v. USA Taekwondo grapples with the problems that have dogged California law governing the determination of duty in negligence for more than fifty years now. The great California duty decisions of the late 1960s—Rowland v. Christian and Dillon v. Legg—were the bookends to an age of American tort law inaugurated by MacPherson v. Buick and Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad. MacPherson and Palsgraf altered both the internal structure of negligence law and tort law’s relation to contract and property by making reasonable foreseeability of harm the master principle of responsibility in tort. Rowland and Dillon brought the age of reasonable foreseeability to a close. As their implications unfolded over time, we learned that making reasonable foreseeability of harm the fundamental test for both the existence of obligation and the extent of liability imposes more responsibility than we can bear. Reaching the limits of reasonable foreseeability as the master principle of duty doctrine left courts hard-pressed to say when fundamental responsibilities of care should be expanded and when they should be contracted. Ever since, California courts have been muddling their way through duty cases. They have been uncertain both about when an actor bears some responsibility for reducing a risk or mitigating a harm and about how they should go about making such determinations. USA Taekwondo’s efforts to recast Rowland’s laundry list of relevant factors as a two-step test shows us how we might begin to bring our own age of confusion to a close.","PeriodicalId":39054,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Tort Law","volume":"138 S248","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140429266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Public Authority Liability for Careless Failure to Protect from Harm 公共机构因疏忽大意未能提供保护而造成伤害的责任

Journal of Tort Law Pub Date : 2024-01-08 DOI: 10.1515/jtl-2023-0040

Sandy Steel

引用次数: 0

Private Nuisance: The UK Supreme Court Take a View 私人滋扰：英国最高法院的观点

Journal of Tort Law Pub Date : 2023-12-08 DOI: 10.1515/jtl-2023-0043

Roderick Bagshaw

{"title":"Private Nuisance: The UK Supreme Court Take a View","authors":"Roderick Bagshaw","doi":"10.1515/jtl-2023-0043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2023-0043","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery, required the UK Supreme Court to resolve claims that by operating an open-air terrace, from which visitors could enjoy a high-level view of London, the defendants were committing the tort of private nuisance against the owners of nearby luxury flats. The Court decided that the intrusive staring into the flats by visitors to the terrace could be a form of private nuisance, but split as to whether the tort was being committed; a minority thought that it would be necessary to take account of the claimants’ flats being glass-walled, and consequently unusually vulnerable to ocular intrusion, and the possibility of the claimants mitigating their discomfort by using blinds, whilst the majority insisted that it was straightforward to hold the defendants liable. This article concentrates on the majority’s re-statement of the basic test for liability in private nuisance, in particular their shift from an approach that assesses the “reasonableness” (or otherwise) of the defendant’s activity to one that relies heavily on a distinction between “common and ordinary” and “special and unusual” uses of land. It concludes that several key elements in the re-statement will require further elucidation, and that the key distinction does not reflect the values that its proponents hoped that it would.","PeriodicalId":39054,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Tort Law","volume":"59 30","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138587913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Sherman v. Department of Public Safety: Institutional Responsibility for Sexual Assault 谢尔曼诉公共安全部:性侵犯的制度责任

Journal of Tort Law Pub Date : 2023-11-06 DOI: 10.1515/jtl-2023-0034

John C. P. Goldberg, Benjamin C. Zipursky

{"title":"<i>Sherman v. Department of Public Safety</i>: Institutional Responsibility for Sexual Assault","authors":"John C. P. Goldberg, Benjamin C. Zipursky","doi":"10.1515/jtl-2023-0034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2023-0034","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article addresses the intersection of three important topics: sexual assault, police misconduct, and employer liability for employee torts. As to the last of these, while there have long been debates among jurists in the U.S. concerning the proper scope of respondeat superior liability, courts have mostly adhered to an approach that focuses on whether the employee acted for the purpose of serving the employer’s interests. The narrowness of this purpose-based test, as compared to available alternatives, makes it imperative for lawyers, judges, and scholars to be attentive to other, less well-known, bases for employer liability. In Sherman v Department of Public Safety , the Delaware Supreme Court applied a particular version of one such doctrine – the “aided-by-agency” doctrine – to hold a police department accountable for its officer’s sexual assault of an arrestee. By articulating this doctrine in a thoughtful and circumscribed manner, the Court affirmed its reputation as a leader in the development of agency law, while also providing a helpful framework that can be applied to hold certain employers liable when employees take advantage of their employment-based authority over their victims to perpetrate assaults.","PeriodicalId":39054,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Tort Law","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135585061","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Tort of Discrimination 歧视侵权

Journal of Tort Law Pub Date : 2023-09-25 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4332817

Hanoch Dagan, Avihay Dorfman

{"title":"The Tort of Discrimination","authors":"Hanoch Dagan, Avihay Dorfman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.4332817","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4332817","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This Essay integrates two ambitions: to lay out new theoretical foundations for antidiscrimination law and to demonstrate the practical significance of these foundations to tackle instances of wrongful discrimination beyond the reach of the current legal regime. Concerning theory, we articulate an account of wrongful discrimination grounded in private law’s basic commitment to reciprocal respect for the self-determination and substantive equality of private persons. Concerning practice, we argue that antidiscrimination law is currently at its pre-MacPherson v. Buick stage, meaning it is made up of isolated pockets of liability for discriminatory behavior. The gaps between them are indefensible since they necessarily undermine people’s fundamental right to be treated as equals by holders of normative powers such as proprietors, employers, and lessors. Nothing short of a full-blown tort of discrimination will enable antidiscrimination law to reach its own MacPherson moment. The theoretical account we develop provides the necessary framework for embarking on this crucial endeavor: a clear articulation of the normative foundations of this tort as an integral and indispensable part of private law in a liberal society. Drawing on existing tort doctrines, we identify important legal tools that can be utilized for prescribing the proper elements—duty, breach, injury, causation, and remedy—of a novel, generic tort of discrimination.","PeriodicalId":39054,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Tort Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47825329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0