Tort Scholars Research Articles

Social Justice Tort Theory

Abstract Alongside the dominant law and economics and corrective justice approaches to tort law, a new genre of tort theory based on principles and perspectives of social justice has come into its own and deserves recognition. Social justice tort theory starts from the premise that tort law reflects and reinforces systemic forms of injustice in the larger society and maintains that the compensatory ideal of tort law cannot be extricated from these larger systems. It is multi-dimensional and intersectional, recognizing that the impact of injury lands intersectionally, sometimes changing the intensity of the injury or distorting the nature of the injury. Social justice tort scholars have examined torts in gendered and racialized contexts, as well as in ordinary cases that seem to have little to do with systemic injury. In addition to feminist and critical race theory, they have borrowed from critical disability studies, queer theory and political economy. Their work demonstrates how tort law unfairly distributes damages, fails to provide adequate relief for victims of sexual assault or for people who suffer racial insult and discrimination, and erases maternal and reproductive harms. In their work, we can see common deconstructive moves (an emphasis on disparate impacts and devaluation; a teasing out of cognitive bias; and a critique of exceptionalism in tort doctrine) as well as guiding principles for reconstruction (incorporating victims’ perspectives; treating boundaries between civil rights law and tort law as permeable; and enhancing dignity and recognition).

Form and Substance in the “Private Law” of Torts

Abstract Instrumentalist ideas have long been prominent in torts scholarship. Since the rise of legal realism, discussions of deterrence, compensation, the minimization of accident costs, and the distribution of losses have dominated scholarly discourse. In the past several decades, however, wholesale rejections of instrumentalist tort theory have arisen. The most uncompromising of these views rallies around the avowedly formalist battle cry that tort is “private law”. Ernest Weinrib’s elegant and influential book, The Idea of Private Law, declares its allegiance to that thesis in its title, and the idea figures almost as centrally in Arthur Ripstein’s recent and important Private Wrongs. Theorists who rally around the banner of “private law” claim that tort law’s governing principles of right and responsibility tumble out of the field’s characteristic legal form. Law, as they understand it, is constitutive of just relations among persons, not an instrument for the pursuit of independently valuable ends. For scholars like Weinrib and Ripstein, “private law” is the Kantian idea of reason that makes our actual law of torts intelligible. The claim that torts is a law of wrongs where persons bring claims in their own names for harms that they have wrongly suffered against those allegedly responsible for those wrongful harms is powerful and persuasive. The claim that the obligations persons owe one another in tort are obligations owed among equal and independent persons is likewise compelling. But theorists of tort as “private law” overshoot the mark by both asking and making too much of form. They ask too much of form when they attempt to make sense of the private law of torts solely in terms of form—eschewing all talk of interests. We cannot understand or justify the law of torts without attending to the interests that it protects. In tort, as elsewhere, rights and the duties they ground protect important individual interests. For example, it is our interest in the physical integrity of our persons that grounds the law of negligence. Theorist of tort as “private law” make too much of form when they present the legal category as its own private fiefdom walled off from surrounding legal fields. For Ripstein and Weinrib, “private law” is its own autonomous domain, sealed off against infection by any legal field whose form identifies it as “public law”. In our law, the private law of torts cooperates and competes with public law institutions as a response to the pervasiveness of accidental harm in an industrial and technological society. It is one way of institutionalizing our interest in safety. Establishing rightful relations among free and equal persons in civil society requires that institutions protect persons’ urgent interests, not just establish their formal independence. The theoretical understanding that we need will recognize that we misunderstand even the private law of torts itself if we sever it entirely from forms of collective responsibility for avoiding and repairing accidental harm with which it competes and cooperates.

Tort Law and Feminism, forthcoming in Oxford Handbook on Feminism and the Law in the U.S. (Deborah L. Brake, Martha Chamallas & Verna Williams, eds) (forthcoming 2021)

Tort law has not been a sympathetic audience for feminist legal scholars. Despite decades of compelling feminist advocacy and scholarship, tort law has largely resisted attempts to orient it towards pursuing goals of social justice or equality. Nevertheless, some feminist redirection has been achieved, mostly through statutory intervention, thus laying the groundwork for further development. This chapter imagines what tort law might look like if it more fully embraced feminist reforms. Focusing on four foundational concepts in tort law – duty, third-party liability, harm, and damages – this chapter uses the tools, insights, and arguments of modern feminist tort scholarship to envision the doctrinal landscape of a tort law rooted in gender justice and social equality. Noting the places where feminist paths have already been forged, this chapter explores how reconceptualizing the duty of care, expanding third-party liability, recognizing a broader range of intimate and harassment-based harms, and eliminating gender and racial bias from damage awards could transform tort from an instrument that perpetuates existing social inequalities into a mechanism of social justice offering recompense and remedy to all who are wrongfully injured.

Social Justice Tort Theory

Alongside the dominant law and economics and corrective justice approaches to tort law, a new genre of tort theory based on principles and perspectives of social justice has come into its own and deserves recognition. Social justice tort theory starts from the premise that tort law reflects and reinforces systemic forms of injustice in the larger society and maintains that the compensatory ideal of tort law cannot be extricated from these larger systems. It is multi-dimensional and intersectional, recognizing that the impact of injury lands intersectionally, sometimes changing the intensity of the injury or distorting the nature of the injury. Social justice tort scholars have examined torts in gendered and racialized contexts, as well as in ordinary cases that seem to have little to do with systemic injury. In addition to feminist and critical race theory, they have borrowed from critical disability studies, queer theory and political economy. Their work demonstrates how tort law unfairly distributes damages, fails to provide adequate relief for victims of sexual assault or for people who suffer racial insult and discrimination, and erases maternal and reproductive harms. In their work, we can see common deconstructive moves (an emphasis on disparate impacts and devaluation; a teasing out of cognitive bias; and a critique of exceptionalism in tort doctrine) as well as guiding principles for reconstruction (incorporating victims’ perspectives; treating boundaries between civil rights law and tort law as permeable; and enhancing dignity and recognition).

Race and Tort Law

Although Richard Delgado published the first critique of tort law from a critical race perspective in 1982, the role of race remains undertheorized in torts scholarship and torts theory, taking a back seat to the dominant approaches that rarely mention race or other social identities. This leave the misimpression that tort law is race-neutral and bears little connection to constitutional or civil rights law, where issues of racial justice are more frequently analyzed and debated. This chapter contests that conventional wisdom and demonstrates that the shape of contemporary tort law has been affected by the social identities of the parties and cultural views on race and ethnicity. The significance of race is not confined to a particular doctrinal area but crops up in intentional tort, negligence and strict liability cases and spills over into debates about the proper measure of damages. It enters tort law through a variety of pathways, sometimes explicitly, but more often the influence of race is beneath the surface and can be gleaned only by looking closely at judicial rhetoric or at implicitly biased assumptions relied on by judges and juries. This overview of the contemporary “race and torts” legal landscape borrows frames from critical race and interdisciplinary scholarship to organize the key cases, issues and debates into four, somewhat overlapping categories: (1) racial discrimination, harassment and insult; (2) stereotyping and racialized contexts; (3) racial devaluation; and (4) racially disparate effects. The portrait that emerges is of a flawed system that tends to reproduce rather than ameliorate racialized harms, while never quite losing its potential to change course and advance racial justice.

Autonomous Vehicles, Technological Progress, and the Scope Problem in Products Liability

Abstract Autonomous vehicles are widely expected to save tens of thousands of lives each year by making car crashes attributable to human error – currently the overwhelming majority of fatal crashes – a thing of the past. How the legal system should attribute responsibility for the (hopefully few) crashes autonomous vehicles cause is an open and hotly debated question. Most tort scholars approach this question by asking what liability rule is most likely to achieve the desired policy outcome: promoting the adoption of this lifesaving technology without destroying manufacturers’ incentives to optimize it. This approach has led to a wide range of proposals, many of which suggest replacing standard rules of products liability with some new system crafted specifically for autonomous vehicles and creating immunity or absolute liability or something in between. But, I argue, the relative safety of autonomous vehicles should not be relevant in determining whether and in what ways manufacturers are held liable for their crashes. The history of products liability litigation over motor vehicle design shows that the tort system has been hesitant to indulge in such comparisons, as it generally declines both to impose liability on older, more dangerous cars simply because they lack the latest safety features and to grant immunity to newer, safer cars simply because of their superior aggregate performance. These are instances in which products liability law fails to promote efficient outcomes and instead provides redress for those who have been wronged by defective products. Applying these ideas to the four fatalities that have so far been caused by autonomous vehicles suggests that just as conventional vehicles should not be considered defective in relying on a human driver, autonomous vehicles should not be immune when their defects cause injury.

Railway Sparks: Technological Development and the Common Law

Abstract The railways have been described as Britain's ‘gift to the world’. The sheer scale, ambition and audaciousness of the engineering still inspires awe and reshaped the landscape forever. They brought towns and cities closer together and instigated irreversible economic, political and social changes. However, as is often the case with a new technology, the railways also brought negative side effects, one of the most destructive of which was fire damage caused by sparks and lighted coals from steam locomotives. The railway sparks issue has long served as a case study for the economic analysis of tort and the issue of where the loss should fall. Nevertheless, much of the analysis has lacked an appreciation of how the courts actually resolved these disputes. This has attracted some comment from tort scholars and legal historians but has never been the subject of a sustained piece of doctrinal or historical research. This article constitutes the first truly comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the cases (both reported and unreported). The study has yielded new insights into the main arguments (and in particular the need to fit spark arrestors to locomotives), the attitude of the railway industry to the problem and the role played by such cases in key doctrinal developments such as strict liability. Moreover, it examines how railway interests in Parliament were able to stymy attempts to replace the common law with a much more onerous strict liability regime under statute. As such it affords important new insights into how law responded to some of the new challenges of the Industrial Age.

Autonomous Vehicles, Technological Progress, and the Scope Problem in Products Liability

Autonomous vehicles are widely expected to save tens of thousands of lives each year by making car crashes attributable to human error—currently the overwhelming majority of fatal crashes—a thing of the past. How the legal system should attribute responsibility for the (hopefully few) crashes autonomous vehicles cause is an open and hotly debated question. Most tort scholars approach this question by asking what liability rule is most likely to achieve the desired policy outcome: promoting the adoption of this lifesaving technology without destroying manufacturers’ incentives to optimize it. This approach has led to a wide range of proposals, many of which suggest replacing standard rules of products liability with some new system crafted specifically for autonomous vehicles and creating immunity or absolute liability or something in between. But, I argue, the relative safety of autonomous vehicles should not be relevant in determining whether and in what ways manufacturers are held liable for their crashes. The history of products liability litigation over motor vehicle design shows that the tort system has been hesitant to indulge in such comparisons, as it generally declines both to impose liability on older, more dangerous cars simply because they lack the latest safety features and to grant immunity to newer, safer cars simply because of their superior aggregate performance. These are instances in which products liability law fails to promote efficient outcomes and instead provides redress for those who have been wronged by defective products. Applying these ideas to the four fatalities that have so far been caused by autonomous vehicles suggests that just as conventional vehicles should not be considered defective in relying on a human driver, autonomous vehicles should not be immune when their defects cause injury.

Pioneers, Consolidators and Iconoclasts: The Story of Tort Scholarship

Common law scholarship is overwhelmingly focused on judicial decisions, with the result that the writings of even highly influential legal scholars have, by comparison, rarely been the subjects of scrutiny in their own right. This represents a serious gap in our understanding of the common law and its development. The purpose of the current volume is to begin the process of redressing this imbalance, by considering the role played by leading scholars of tort law from across the common law world in the development of the subject. The focus of the contributions is on the nature of the work produced by each of the scholars in question, important influences on them and the influence which they in turn had on thinking about tort law.

MULTIPLE REASONABLE BEHAVIORS CASES: THE PROBLEM OF CAUSAL UNDERDETERMINATION IN TORT LAW

ABSTRACTThis article introduces a significant yet largely overlooked problem in the law of torts: causal underdetermination. This problem occurs when the causal inquiry of a but-for test produces not one but two results, which are contradictory. According to the first, the negligent defendant is the likely cause of the plaintiff's injury, whereas according to the second, she is not. The article explains why causal underdetermination has escaped the radar of tort scholars and is perceived by courts as lack of causation. It demonstrates that the current practice in cases of causal underdetermination might lead to erroneous decisions, absolving negligent defendants of tort liability even when the evidence suggests that they are in fact the likely cause of the plaintiff's injury. This, in turn, the article asserts, may not only lead to underdeterrence among potential defendants, but also encourage manipulative litigation strategy to escape liability in retrospect. The article then proposes solutions that contend with causal underdetermination and resolve the difficulties that the current practice entails.

A room with a view in English nuisance law: exploring modernisation hidden within the ‘textbook tradition’

AbstractThe paper critically examines the consensus among tort scholars that an injured view can never be actionable in nuisance. The consensus, it is argued, is based on a problematic understanding of the permanence of early modern nuisance authority, and a neglect of modernisation in the definition of actionable injury in the nineteenth century, in response to industrialisation, urbanisation and, crucially, suburbanisation. David Sugarman's ‘textbook tradition’ provides a valuable disciplinary explanation for the mismatch between scholarly portrayals of doctrine and authoritative judicial formulations in decided cases.

Accident Aversion: An Experiment

Tort models predict a symmetry in the behavior of tortfeasors and victims when respectively faced by strict liability and no liability. Tort scholars have widely relied upon this prediction. Yet, the prediction is based on a theoretical economic model that has not yet been empirically tested. This lack of validation is problematic, because experimental evidence has unveiled the existence of hyper-altruistic behavior, whereby individuals prefer harming themselves rather than others, as well as self-protective behavior, whereby individuals overestimate the direct harm they suffer relative to the harm they cause to others. Using a novel experimental design, we test whether the symmetric behavior hypothesis is an empirically plausible assumption for tort models. Experimental results provide qualified support for the hypothesis. However, results do not confirm all the predictions of the standard tort model and reveal statistically different behavioral patterns of victims and tortfeasors through time.

The Prosser Letters: Scholar as Dean

Abstract Examining a previously unexplored trove of letters, this article sheds new light on the thinking and work of William L. Prosser, the past century’s leading torts scholar. In these letters to family written while dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Prosser candidly describes his approach to scholarship; the development of his casebook, the second edition of Prosser on Torts, and some of his most well-known and influential articles. Moreover, Prosser provides his often-cynical impressions of the legal process; his views of his peers at Berkeley and at other institutions; and his work as dean. The letters also demonstrate some of Prosser’s limitations, including his craving for attention, a sometimes petty personality, and racial and ethnic biases. In all, the letters capture a scholar at the zenith of professional accomplishment in his field, who nevertheless showed signs of the insecurity that would later trigger his resignation from the Berkeley deanship and retreat from the forefront of torts scholarship.

Risky Business: Enterprise Liability, Corporate Groups and Torts

AbstractCorporate personality and limited liability have been the foundations of corporate law for most of its modern history. While these concepts greatly contributed to the early development of corporations, their application in the modern era is outmoded. Nowhere is this clearer than in ‘risky business’ scenarios, where a subsidiary is constituted for the purpose of shielding the corporate group as a whole from tortious liability arising from risky or dangerous activities. Tort victims generally must rely on ineffective and inconsistent common law and tort law doctrines in order to seek redress for torts committed against them, and a number of high profile cases have highlighted the flaws in such approaches. Many corporate law and tort scholars have commented on these flaws and a literature has developed proposing rational alternatives. This paper presents the case for adopting ‘enterprise liability’ in risky business situations, that is, treating the companies within a corporate group as one unified enterprise for the purposes of compensating tort victims.

Mental Capacity as a Concept in Negligence: Against an Insanity Defence

A defendant's ‘insanity’ will not excuse his or her negligence. According to corrective justice theory, if A injures B, then A should compensate B – that A's actions may be attributable to a mental illness is therefore immaterial. Some tort scholars argue the law should excuse insane defendants from liability because they lack the mental capacity to commit negligence. ‘Capacity’ therefore lies at the core of the case for insanity defence. This article argues that ‘capacity’ fails as a framework concept for the insanity defence. It is poorly defined, fails to map onto the structural features of negligence and poses significant evidential challenges. It also has a spurious relationship with insanity. This paper prefers the status quo and concludes that the case for excusing the insane from negligence liability is conceptually flawed and normatively unconvincing.

The Strict Liability in Fault and the Fault in Strict Liability

Tort scholars have long been obsessed with the dichotomy between strict liability and liability based on fault or wrongdoing. We argue that this is a false dichotomy. Torts such as battery, libel, negligence, and nuisance are wrongs, yet all are “strictly” defined in the sense of setting objective and thus quite demanding standards of conduct. We explain this basic insight under the heading of “the strict liability in fault.” We then turn to the special case of liability for abnormally dangerous activities, which at times really does involve liability without wrongdoing. Through an examination of this odd corner of tort law, we isolate “the fault in strict liability” — that is, the fault line between the wrongs-based form of strict liability that is frequently an aspect of tort liability and the wrongs-free form of strict liability that is found only within the very narrow domain of liability for abnormally dangerous activities. We conclude by defending these two features of the common law of tort: the strictness of the terms on which it defines wrongdoing and its begrudging willingness to recognize, in one special kind of case, liability without wrongdoing.

On the Transformation of Economic Analysis of Tort Law

The Research Handbook on the Economic of Torts (Edward Elgar, 2013), edited by Jennifer Arlen, contains a very impressive collection of contributions written by leading tort scholars. The major theme that runs through the Handbook's diversified chapters is that the economic analysis of tort law has developed, as it should have, from ideal and generalized models into more realistic, informed and context-related analysis. The traditional, canonical, models were ideal and generalized in the sense that they tended to focus on two parties (victim and injurer), in a world of perfect information, of optimal courts, of no litigation costs and of no insurance. They assumed that the threat of tort liability can induce due (efficient) care by both (solvent) injurers and victims, and that same economic analysis models are applicable to different types of accident and harms. More recent and more mature economic analysis, it is demonstrated, has acknowledged, and has been adjusted to, the realities of imperfect and asymmetrical information, courts' errors, significant litigation costs, the complexity of multi-party litigation and the limits of tort law as an efficient deterrent given cognitive biases, limited ability to control inadvertence and insolvency. Economic analysis according to this theme has developed to be much more sensitive to context, to insurance, to institutional liability, to the importance of experimental research and empirical data, and to the alternatives to tort liability. Other traits of the mature economic analysis are recognition, even by its proponents, that actual tort law is sometimes inefficient, and that different economic models have to be synthesized. This review has two major parts. The first part illustrates, by comparing different topics and contributions, how important factors that were previously disregarded or understated are integrated into present economic analysis. These factors are: imperfect and asymmetrical information, adjustments of the deterrent effect of tort liability, institutional liability, context-based analysis, and experimental legal studies and their implications on tort reforms and tort theory. The second part comments on and criticizes the Chapters on medical malpractice, causation, fault and insurance, challenging some of the claims and proposals made there. It concludes with two reflections on the economic analysis of tort law.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN PRIVATE NUISANCE: COLLECTIVES AND COMMUNITIES IN TORT

AbstractThe relevance of public interests in private law is at the heart of some central divides in tort scholarship. This paper argues that public interests pervade private nuisance cases. The uncertain and contested nature of public interests, and the absence in both the case law and the scholarly literature of an abstract definition of what is to count as a public interest, do not prevent these matters from playing a significant role in tort. In these circumstances, it is important to reflect on how we might set about articulating the public interest. This paper argues that administrative decisions that are intended to serve the public interest can in some cases provide a defensible vision of public interest for the purposes of private law. An examination of the process by which regulatory decisions were reached can provide indicators to assist in identifying and evaluating the strength of claimed public interests.

Tort Law for Cynics

Tort scholars have in recent years defended a ‘traditional’ or ‘idealist’ view of tort law. In the context of negligence this implies that the holder of a duty of care must make an effort not to violate that duty. Idealists contrast this with a ‘cynical’ view that having a duty of care implies a legal requirement to pay damages for breach of that duty. This article defends the cynical view, arguing that it easily explains doctrines supposedly only explicable from an idealist perspective, and that many aspects of tort law are hard to reconcile with idealism. Empirical constraints often make idealism, even if it were desirable, unattainable, and cynicism is therefore the more honest view. The article argues that idealism is often undesirable, having costs, both pecuniary and non‐pecuniary, which are often ignored, and that therefore it is sometimes better if certain torts take place (and are compensated) than if they do not happen.

Assumption of Risk, After All

Assumption of risk - the notion that one cannot complain about a harmful state to which one has willingly exposed oneself - figures prominently in our extra-legal lived experience. In spite of its deep roots in our common-sense morality, the tort doctrine of assumption of risk has long been discredited by many leading tort scholars, restatement reporters, courts, and legislatures. In recent years, however, growing concerns about junk food consumption, and about obesity more generally, have given rise to considerations that are traditionally associated with the principles underlying the doctrine of assumption of risk. Against this backdrop, I shall advance two claims: one negative and the other affirmative. The negative claim is that the major objections to the doctrine of assumption of risk are either misplaced or overblown. And affirmatively, I argue that this doctrine (properly reconstructed to reflect liberal-egalitarian intuitions) can provide an illuminating framework with which to address pressing social concerns such as the one associated with junk food’s harmful side-effects