English lawyers have for some time been aware that some pretty exciting things have been happening to tort law and theory in America in recent decades. The invention of strict products liability is perhaps the best known of these developments, and has already inspired a rash of imitators, including the Council of Europe, and the EEC Council.' The willingness of the California Supreme Court to expand liability for nervous shock2 has recently been echoed in the House of Lords,3 which was perhaps not well informed about the extent to which California reflects the trend of opinion in the United States. Other similar developments, if they can be called 'tort law', such as the auto no-fault compensation schemes, have also been very influential in many parts of the Commonwealth. In addition, of course, there has been the great burgeoning of interest in tort theory, with the emphasis of economic ideas on the deterrence aspects of tort law, and much discussion, more recently, of fairness ideas on the compensation side. At the same time, the westerly winds bring over from time to time more disturbing news about recent developments in tort law. We hear, sometimes at second and third hand, alarming (or alarmist?) stories of absurd jury prodigality with damages, of sky-high products liability, insurance premiums driving firms into bankruptcy, of a country inundated with medical malpractice claims, and of entrepreneurial lawyers trying to fasten liability for cigarette-induced cancer onto the tobacco companies. What exactly is going on in American tort law? I will not be so rash as to attempt a general answer to this question, but sustained exposure to the six volumes of Harper, James and Gray on The Law of Torts prompts me to offer some reflections on the background to American tort law.