Torts
Should Tort Law Care About Police Officers?
Professors Ellen Bublick and Jane Bambauer argue that the common law has expanded, and should continue to expand, the civil legal rights of wrongfully injured people, including police. There is value in using civil enforcement to hold both civilians and officers accountable for the unjustified harms that they cause.
The Plaintiff Police
In civil litigation, police most commonly appear as defendants. But police also act as plaintiffs, suing the individuals they police. This Article argues that these plaintiff police claims cause significant democratic harms and should be limited. Compensation and deterrence can be achieved through other, less politically corrosive mechanisms.
Refining Constitutional Torts
Constitutional torts allow victims of governmental misconduct to seek redress. But the doctrinal regime is in disarray because it vacillates between two conceptions of constitutional rights: rights that “nullify” changes to subconstitutional law and rights that impose “duties” on officers. The Feature defends a regime that embraces constitutional duties.
Auto Clubs and the Lost Origins of the Access-to-Justice Crisis
A century ago, auto clubs offered an astonishing array of legal services, representing members in civil and criminal cases, on both sides of the proverbial “v.” But in the 1930s, bar associations decimated these clubs, alongside other group-legal-service providers—and, we argue, sowed the seeds of the current access-to-justice crisis.
The Glaring Gap in Tort Theory
The glaring gap in tort theory is its failure to take adequate account of liability insurance. We explain how to begin filling the gap in tort theory that results from omitting consideration of liability insurance, showing how liability insurance can appropriately figure in both deontic and consequentialist theories of tort.
What It Takes to Write Statutes that Hold the Firearms Industry Accountable to Civil Justice
This Essay defends statutes creating public nuisance and consumer protection causes of action against firearms industry actors for their failure to take reasonable measures to control the flow of their products to criminal users. Such laws are predicate statutes under PLCAA and do not infringe the Second Amendment.
Opaque Capital and Mass-Tort Financing
Mass-tort cases have grown in scale and created escalating resource demands. Enter opaque capital: aggressive financiers who offer attorneys and plaintiffs access to capital. The prospect of leveling the playing field is alluring. But these financiers will never be passive partners. Opaque capital is moving into mass-tort financing to dictate outcomes.
The New Public Nuisance: Illegitimate and Dysfunctional
The new public nuisance is illegitimate because it violates the rule of law and is inconsistent with norms of democratic accountability. It also ignores the dangers of over- and under-deterrence associated with joint ventures between prosecutors and personal-injury lawyers seeking massive damages from deep-pocketed defendants.
The Perils and Promise of Public Nuisance
Public nuisance is a puzzle: both a medieval action and a contemporary force in large-scale opioid settlements, it has provoked historical, formalist, and institutional objections. Close examination reveals, however, that public nuisance adheres to the common law’s accepted bounds and can play an important role in today’s regulatory landscape.
The First Amendment and the Right(s) of Publicity
First Amendment analysis in right of publicity cases is notoriously troublesome. To remedy this nettlesome conflict, this Article disaggregates the distinct interests that support publicity laws, and then analyzes how these intersect with First Amendment values. By doing so it offers a navigational map for this tumultuous terrain.
Competition Wrongs
Drawing on various forms of business law, this Article argues that misconduct in the marketplace can wrong other market actors even though those actors did not have a right against the misconduct. This argument challenges traditional philosophical and legal assumptions about rights and accountability.
Nudges and Norms in Multidistrict Litigation: A Response to Engstrom
Multidistrict-litigation judges have invented a medley of new procedures to adjudicate the mass-tort cases before them. As plaintiff fact sheets and Lone Pine orders become widespread, however, formal rules’ built-in protections wane and procedural burdens may fall more harshly on one side.
The Lessons of Lone Pine
Lone Pine orders have become a prominent fixture of the mass-tort landscape. So far, the orders have been mostly heralded as an inventive way to streamline the resolution of complex cases. Complicating that consensus, this Article analyzes drawbacks associated with this potent device and advocates restrictions on the orders’ entry.
Making Black Lives Matter: Properly Valuing the Rights of the Marginalized in Constitutional Torts
Black lives are systematically undervalued by constitutional enforcement remedies. Courts and scholars have unquestioningly adopted tort law’s corrective-justice scheme for § 1983 suits. But corrective justice is unsatisfactory in a context where the government and private parties frequently interact. This Note argues that distributive justice should be considered as a viable alternative.
Tailoring Regimes for a Designer Drug: Developing Civil Liability for Retailers of Synthetic Marijuana
The spread of synthetic marijuana is a public health crisis. Municipalities struggle with how to regulate drugs that can change as quickly as officials can design enforcement regimes. This Comment proposes leveraging creative administrative design and existing consumer protection torts to stem the tide of synthetic marijuana overdoses.
Duties Owed: Low-Intensity Cyber Attacks and Liability for Transboundary Torts in International Law
Mistakes, Misunderstandings, and Misalignments
In a recent article appearing in The Yale Law Journal, Ariel Porat argues that the tort of negligence is beset by a range of misalignments that threaten to induce inefficient behavior. In this Response, I argue that Porat is working with an unhelpful notion of misalignment; that tort law has its own internal conception of alignment; and that once we understand the nature of alignment in torts, none of his examples are problematic. If anything, his arguments reveal problems in his understanding of the tort of negligence rather than problems in the tort itself or in its practical implementation. Many of the confusions that beset Porat’s argument are common in the law and economics of tort literature, which has for far too long run fast and loose with a confused understanding of the nature of liability in torts as well as of liability’s relationship to the elements of a tort. Porat’s article is my main focus, but my objections are intended to cut more broadly and deeply.
Preventing Policy Default: Fallbacks and Fail-safes in the Modern Administrative State
**This is the third in a series of responses to Benjamin Ewing and Douglas A. Kysar's recent article, Prods and Pleas: Limited Government in an Era of Unlimited Harm, which appeared in the November issue of YLJ. For Professor Richard Epstein's response, see here. For Professor Jonathan Zasloff's response, see here.** Benjamin Ewing and Douglas Kysar’s article, Prods and Pleas, discusses one benefit of the fragmented American governance system: the opportunity for institutions to influence the agendas of other, more powerful institutions. The authors illustrate this point with an extensive discussion of the potential for common law nuisance cases to direct congressional attention to the issue of climate change. Their general point is well taken, but they focus too heavily on the common law rather than the more important judicial role in public law, and they mention only in passing the role of states as independent policy centers. Furthermore, besides nudging Congress or the executive branch, public law litigation and state legislative activity can also help fill the gaps created by congressional or presidential policy defaults.