Legal damages for losses of chances

Traditionally, damages for torts have been awarded on an all-or-nothing basis. In malpractice suits, however, a growing number of courts are holding doctors liable for negligent acts that reduces a patient’s chance of survival, even if the patient’s chances for recovery have already been less than 50%. For lack of a general principle, a disparate variety of loss of chance rules seems in use. To provide some more systematic guidance, the present paper proposes to look directly at the interaction between the injurer’s act and a random move of nature that captures the uncertainty. For any given move of nature, damages are still awarded on an all-or-nothing basis. If however, for lack of observability, moves of nature cannot sufficiently be distinguished, averages of correct damages over observable events are taken. While the scheme aims at compensatory goals of tort law, as a by-product, it also generates efficient precaution incentives provided that due care standards obey the Hand Formula.     

Court Awards of Damages for Loss of Future Earnings: An Empirical Study and an Alternative Method of Calculation

This article examines the effect upon damages for personal injury of methods used in the United States of America to calculate loss of future earnings. The work of lawyers is examined from the perspective of labour economists. The damages calculated by using these alternative methods are compared with those actually awarded in over a hundred cases determined by courts in England and Wales. This interdisciplinary and comparative study reveals that the tort system fails to satisfy one of its main objectives in that it does not provide recipients of damages with 'full' compensation.     

论医学人体试验中的侵权责任——以比较法为视角

当前我国立法与司法未对医学人体试验侵权责任与医疗损害责任加以区分,对其归责原则和因果关系也有不同认识。在美国,法院渐趋认可人体试验侵权责任为独立诉因,在过错和因果关系的认定上,则分别有主观说和客观说等不同的观点。大陆法系国家中,法国将人体试验侵权责任作为一种特殊侵权,并区分治疗性试验和非治疗性试验分别适用过错责任原则和无过错责任原则。德国将人体试验作为一般过错侵权,并在涉及药品的案件中适用产品责任。荷兰将人体试验侵权责任作为一种独立的侵权责任,并适用过错责任原则。晚近的立陶宛《生物医学试验法》规定了人体试验侵权的无过错责任。我国应当构建独立于医疗侵权责任的人体试验侵权责任,其归责原则为过错责任原则。在因果关系问题上,应当采取相当因果关系、疫学原理因果关系以及因果关系推定理论来进行综合判断。     

The Scientific and the Social in Implementing Atkins v. Virginia

Atkins v. Virginia (2002) categorically exempts intellectually disabled defendants from execution, yet some constitutionally suspect punishments suggest a gap between law and practice. This article moves beyond critiquing Atkins’ formal implementation to provide a decentered analysis of the Atkins gap focused on the category of intellectual disability. It explores how drawing boundaries around intellectual disability in capital cases requires law to grapple with fluid scientific and social constructs through a study of how courts operationalize intellectual disability in capital cases. It draws from literatures considering the construction of intellectual disability and law's relationship to the scientific and the social and finds that this intersection first enables a conceptual disconnect between scientific and legal constructions of intellectual disability and, second, invites the use of stereotypes to inform the category. These processes undermine Atkins’—and other categorical exemptions’—ability to functionally limit extreme punishments and also reveal law as mutually constitutive.     

The class certification of medical monitoring claims

The tort claim of medical monitoring has produced a disarrayed set of state and federal court opinions. The procedural dimensions of this claim are as vexing as the related substantive issues with which courts and commentators have long been grappling. Ordinarily, mass tort actions, typically involving claims for money damages, are certified under Rule 23(b)(3), which class category requires the right to notice and to opt out of a proceeding, and the fulfillment of "predominance" and "superiority" requirements. Such features are absent in Rule 23's mandatory classes. Nevertheless, this Note argues that it is appropriate for claims exclusively for medical monitoring to be certified as a mandatory class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or its state law counterparts. Given that a medical monitoring fund is an equitable remedy, nonpreclusive of a future damages claim, and groupwide in nature, the (b)(2) class category adequately protects the due process rights of class plaintiffs.     

In Defense of Asbestos Tort Litigation: Rethinking Legal Process Analysis in a World of Uncertainty, Second Bests, and Shared Policy-Making Responsibility

A central question in American policy making is when should courts address complex policy issues, as opposed to defer to other forums? Legal process analysis offers a standard answer. It holds that judges should act when adjudication offers advantages over other modes of social ordering such as contracts, legislation, or agency rule making. From this vantage, the decision to use common law adjudication to address a sprawling public health crisis was a terrible mistake, as asbestos litigation has come to represent the very worst of mass tort litigation. This article questions this view, arguing that legal process analysis distorts the institutional choices underlying the American policy‐making process. Indeed, once one considers informational and political constraints, as well as how the branches of government can fruitfully share policy‐making functions, the asbestos litigation seems a reasonable and, in some ways, exemplary, use of judicial power.     

Sex and the sacred: sterilization and bodily integrity in English and Canadian law

Through an examination of cases of non-consensual sterilization for learning disabled persons in Canada and England, this article considers the role that law plays in framing the thoughts, beliefs, and norms that fashion the ways we think about bodies, sex, gender, and sexuality. The author asks how it is that Canadian and English law, while both claiming to protect bodily integrity, have reached opposing conclusions about whether non-therapeutic sterilization can be in a person's best interests. She hypothesizes that the answer could lie in the manner in which courts have constructed the bodies of learning disabled men and women in the sphere of sexuality and reproduction. Where the overriding concern in the sterilization cases is the containment of the sexuality of a learning disabled person perceived as "out of control" or "vulnerable to seduction", sterilization is cast as a just and humane solution that will advance the welfare of the individual concerned. Conversely, where the overriding concern is the preservation of the integrity of a law committed to the principle of equality, sterilization is thought to be a violation of the bodily integrity of the person. The author shows that these two views engender very different legal and cultural discourses about best interests and bodily integrity. The debate highlighted by the sterilization cases and the commentary surrounding them reflect larger tension within legal discourse between the commitment to liberal values and the maintenance of a particular social order.     

Anchoring in the Courtroom: The Effects of Caps on Punitive Damages

Responding to the perception that civil damage awards are out of control, courts and legislatures have pursued tort reform efforts largely aimed at reigning in damage awards by juries. One proposed method for reigning in civil juries is to limit, or cap, the amount that can be awarded for punitive damages. Despite significant controversy over damage awards and the civil litigation system, there has been little research focusing on the process by which juries determine damages. In particular, there is a paucity of research on the possible effects of placing caps on punitive damages. The present research examines punitive damage caps and reveals an anchoring effect of the caps on both compensatory and punitive damages. A second experiment replicates this effect and examines the moderating effect of bifurcating the compensatory and punitive damage decisions.     

Re‐Claiming Disability: Identity,Procedural Justice,and the Disability Determination Process

This research highlights the crucial role of an intimate link between a disabled person's self‐identity and the perceived fairness of legal procedures. In doing so, it brings to the foreground a wholly ignored aspect of procedural justice. Earlier researchers have failed to delve into the role identity politics plays in the relationship between the institutions and the beneficiaries of their services, and the way different members of a group understand and define themselves. This research explores the way people with disabilities in the United States, with different kinds of disability identities, experience and evaluate the procedure of claiming Social Security benefits. The findings suggest that disabled people who identified with the social model of disability (as opposed to the medical‐individual models) hold a critical view of the procedure for retaining benefits. They felt they had no control over it, could not voice their opinions, were mistreated by representatives, and had to present an image that was not necessarily true of their disability. They also saw the procedure as discouraging them from participating fully in the labor market, and consequently integrating better in society, an idea that was not present among disabled people who identify with medical‐individual models. Exposing this relationship between the way people perceive themselves and the way they experience and evaluate legal procedures can contribute to the creation of better policies, while improving communication between the state and members of the disability community, along with other marginalized groups.     

侵权行为法的社会功能

我国大多数学者认为侵权法的社会功能包括惩罚和预防功能,甚至有很多人主张将惩罚性损害赔偿制度全面引入我国的民事法律制度中。但是,在现代社会,侵权法的基本功能应是填补损害,传统侵权法中的预防功能已经成为填补损害的反射作用,惩罚功能在侵权法中已消失。     

错误出生的损害赔偿责任及适当限制

随着科技发展及社会伦理观念的变迁,我国与胎儿畸形相关的纠纷和诉讼呈明显上升趋势。我国侵权法应当引入错误出生的概念,确认错误出生损害赔偿责任。该损害赔偿责任侵害的是患者获得适当产前保健服务的合法权益,由此产生了一系列财产损害和精神损害。损害赔偿的范围主要为从医疗机构第一次做出错误产检报告时起,至分娩结束时止的与怀孕相关的医疗费用、特殊抚养费用以及精神损害赔偿。精神损害赔偿可以根据东西部的差异限定为5万到10万人民币的最高额;财产损害则根据原因力规则和与有过失规则加以适当限制。     

论美国有毒物质侵权诉讼中的健康检查费损害赔偿诉讼

在有毒物质侵权诉讼领域,美国普通法新近发展了预防性的健康检查费损害赔偿诉讼,亦即如果原告暴露于有毒物质中,即使还没有发现因此而产生的明显疾病,但对此而进行的合理医疗检查所产生的费用也可以获得赔偿。该诉讼是在美国环境司法实践中产生发展的,具有普通法上的法理基础,同时在适用时又有一定的条件要求。对具体赔偿金额的执行也较为特别。这一诉讼对我国目前环境侵权法的研究和实践具有借鉴价值。     

美国劳动法上雇用自由原则的公共政策例外:形成、实践与反思

公共政策例外是美国各州法院司法实务中形成的普通法例外,它构成了对美国传统劳动法上雇用自由原则的限制。该例外的适用,为那些因拒绝从事违反公共政策行为而遭解雇的员工提供了侵权法上的诉因。由于法院在适用该例外时对公共政策的涵义和法源存在不同认识,因而导致司法判决的不统一,对全面保护劳动者权益造成不利影响。为了改变这种状况,应当通过对法律的明文规定探求公共政策的法源,并在此基础上扩大公共政策例外在不当解雇案件中的适用。     

英美法对医疗过失的判定原则及对我国的启示

过失是医疗损害责任认定中最为重要的条件,如何确定过失是医疗纠纷和诉讼中最为关键的问题。我国在该问题上的研究及实践均存有欠缺之处,而英美国家在过失判定原则中,其注意义务标准的设定和认定具有一定的合理之处,对我国医疗过失理论研究和司法实践均有借鉴作用。     

What are Tort Awards Really Like? The Untold Story from the State Courts*

The popular press frequently reports exorbitant money damage awards by juries. These stories cause paroxysms in the business community because juries are viewed as favoring plaintiffs over corporations. A growing body of literature has examined aspects of this complex issue, but within a limited framework. Prior studies, which are based on data from the early 1980s or before, tend to focus on federal court cases, primarily product liability and medical malpractice torts, only jury verdicts, and single jurisdictions when state courts are included. The objective of this article is to contribute to the literature by examining all tort cases reaching either a bench or a jury trial verdict during a sample period in 1989 in twenty-seven general jurisdiction trial courts. Research is organized around three basic questions. What do torts look like? Do particular types of plaintiffs/defendants gain a higher percent of favorable verdicts? When plaintiffs are awarded money damages, what is the importance of litigant status, while controlling for other factors, in influencing the size of the awards? The article begins by describing the landscape of torts - the typical configurations of the contending litigants, the composition of torts by area of law, the types of trials, verdict patterns, and the average size of awards. Basic contours of the landscape reflect the elemental facts that individuals generally are plaintiffs in these cases and the opposite tendency of corporations, insurance companies, and governments to appear as defendants. Next a model is outlined and tested to determine how strongly different possible determinants shape the size of tort awards in the twenty-seven state trial courts. Does the size of the award depend on the configuration of the parties after taking into account the type of tort, the type of trial, the length of disposition time, and the state in which the court is located? The results indicate that the group of variables representing the various pairing of litigants accounts for most of the explained variation in award size. These findings support the notion that the status of the litigants is an important factor in influencing awards. Because the variables representing some of the individual states are also significant, the evidence also suggests no single, uniform pattern applies across all the courts. Instead, the state context shapes the basic parameters of plaintiff and defendant success.     

美国合同法中的精神损害赔偿探析

传统的英美合同法理论认为,侵权责任中的精神损害赔偿不能扩展到违约责任中。然而,随着经济的发展,为了更好地保护受害方的利益,美国法学界和法院在一定程度上打破了这一传统原则,允许受害方在某些情况下可以要求违约中的精神损害赔偿,如：合同具有个人因素,合同条款无法为受害方提供适当金钱赔偿,违约方在订约时已经或应该预见到其违约行为将导致的精神损害等。笔者在对此进行仔细研究的基础上,对我国在这方面的立法提出了建议。     

‘In this Day and Age’: Social Facts,Common Sense and Cognition in Tort Law Judging in the United Kingdom

Tort law judging in the United Kingdom includes judicial ‘truth claims’ or ‘social facts’ about the world, society, and institutional and human behaviour. Although corrective justice and rights scholars assert tort law is autonomous and internally referential, social facts can be influential in tort decisions. While there is some evidence of judicial use of empirical research, many social facts are based on judicial notice, judicial common sense, and intuition. Social facts, often based on judicial common sense, play a role in tort judging. However, they can also be fertile ground for the introduction of cognitive bias and judicial error. The role of social facts in tort judging is not confined to ‘policy’ reasoning but includes social framework, context, and background. Emerging research on judicial cognition can help explain the nature and impact of common‐sense social facts. There is a need to consider potential responses to judicial use of social facts and judicial cognition.     

Toxic Torts,Politics, and Environmental Justice: The Case for Crimtorts*

The borderline between criminal and tort law has been increasingly blurred over the past quarter century by the emergence of new “crimtort” remedies which have evolved to deter and punish corporate polluters. Punitive damages, multiple damages, and other “crimtort” remedies are under unrelenting assault by neo‐conservatives principally because, under this paradigm, the punishment for wrongdoing can be calibrated to the wealth of the polluter. If wealth‐based punishment is eliminated by the “tort reformers,” plaintiffs’ victories in crimtort actions such as those portrayed in the movies Silkwood, A Class Action, and Erin Brockovich will become an endangered species.     

Trade Secrecy Injunctions,Disclosure Risks,and eBay's Influence

Historically, intellectual property (IP) owners could rely on injunctive remedies to prevent continued infringement. The Supreme Court's eBay v. MercExchange decision changed this, however. After eBay, patent courts no longer apply presumptions that push the deliberative scales in favor of injunctions (or “property rule” protection). Instead, patent injunctions require a careful four‐factor analysis, where plaintiffs must demonstrate irreparable injury (i.e., that money damages cannot compensate). Without question, eBay has made it harder for patent plaintiffs to secure injunctions, and has led many district courts to consider innovation policy concerns (e.g., the strategic behavior of patent “troll” plaintiffs) in the injunction calculus. By and large, courts’ more deliberative approach to patent injunctions post‐eBay has been viewed as beneficial for the patent system. Over the past decade, eBay’s influence has migrated to other areas of IP. This article offers the first account of eBay’s impact on federal trade secrecy injunctions. Important differences between trade secret law and other areas of IP—for example, the hard‐to‐quantify risk that disclosure poses to trade secret owners—has lessened eBay’s influence on trade secrecy injunctions. This article argues that disclosure risks justify a bifurcated approach to trade secrecy injunctions. That is, in cases involving the dissemination of trade secrets, courts should presume irreparable injury in the injunction calculus. However, in cases involving the unauthorized use of a trade secret—that is, where a defendant builds upon a plaintiff's trade secret but does not disseminate it—courts should not presume irreparable harm and, instead, should apply the eBay framework. As part of this assessment, courts should consider policy concerns related to cumulative innovation and employee mobility.     

Measuring damages for lost enjoyment of life: the view from the bench and the jury box

Civil jury instructions are inconsistent in defining what constitutes noneconomic damages, which may include pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life (LEL), among other injury sequelae. This inconsistency has been manifested recently in court decisions that have considered whether LEL should be treated as a separate element of noneconomic damages, distinct from pain and suffering. This paper reviews the case law on this issue and also describes a jury simulation experiment. Mock jurors awarded damages after they received instructions on noneconomic damages in which LEL was (1) not identified as a distinct element of damages; (2) defined as an element of damages distinct from pain and suffering, but participants awarded a single amount for noneconomic damages; or (3) defined as a distinct element of damages, and participants awarded separate amounts for LEL and pain and suffering. Instructions about LEL resulted in larger awards, but only when mock jurors also made a separate award for that element of damages.