Pediatric acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS); health care demonstration projects--HRSA. Notice of availability of funds

The Bureau of Maternal and Child Health and Resources Development (BNCHRD), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces that Fiscal Year (FY) 1990 funds are available for grants for Pediatric AIDS Health Care Demonstration Projects, Pediatric AIDS Comprehensive Center Demonstration Projects, and National Issues of High Priority. Projects will be funded to demonstrate strategies and innovative models for intervention in pediatric AIDS and coordinated services for children, youth, and women of childbearing age with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection, AIDS or other related conditions, or those at risk for developing infection and its consequences. Funds were appropriated for this purpose by Public Law 101-166.     

Preconception tort liability: recognizing a strict liability cause of action for DES grandchildren.

Over the past decade more than 1,000 "DES daughters" have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of DES, alleging that their in utero exposure to the drug caused various reproductive tract abnormalities, including cancer. Plaintiffs now allege that their grandmothers' use of DES during pregnancy caused genetic damage leading to cancer in third generations. This Note addresses the validity of preconception tort liability in the context of third-generation DES cases. Plaintiffs in preconception tort liability cases have sought recovery under both negligence and strict liability causes of action. Courts should recognize the validity of preconception tort liability and allow a strict liability cause of action in third-generation cases.     

After Waterhouse: vicarious liability and the tort of institutional abuse

As evidence of the extent of the abuse of children in residential care increases, our understanding of this terrible wrong has altered. These assaults are an institutional syndrome, at the same time that they are individual crimes; certain systems of institutional care are conducive to/foster abuse behaviour (acting as 'crucibles' rather than 'honeypots'for rogue paedophiles). A theory of vicarious (institutional) liability is appropriate if we understand a syndrome of institutional abuse in this way, as involving institutional responsibility in addition to individual fault. The recent decision of the Canadian Supreme Court in Bazley v Curry found a children's home vicariously liable for sexual assaults of an employee on the basis of responsibility through the creation of risk, an analysis of and apportionment of liability which is appropriate to the special syndrome of institutional abuse, while encouraging deterrence and providing fair and practical compensation to victims. This analysis/liability is supported by an economic analysis of institutional child abuse and decision making in child protection.     

《侵权责任法》背景下医疗损害责任的认定

怎样的责任认定标准才是医疗损害案件裁决中的妥当标准,长期以来社会各界争执不休。《侵权责任法》的出台为消除这种分歧和争执带来了新的曙光。法院作为＂主宰＂案件胜负的关键主体,应如何把握好医疗损害案件中责任认定的标准,才能真正为和谐医患关系保驾护航。本文拟从《侵权责任法》将带来的三项重大调整、附条件的＂推定过错＂能否将患方引向法院和法院审理医疗损害案件责任认定应注意把握好三个结合作一初步探讨。     

Blending reform of tort liability and health insurance: a necessary mix

The thesis of this Article is that making more health insurance benefits available to more people, far from lessening injury victims' proclivity to sue in tort (as conventional wisdom argues), will increase such suits. Thus, it is necessary to accompany any increases in health care coverage with the type of tort reform proposed herein. This reform would allow parties to opt out of the cumbersome and expensive tort claim process with its compensation of noneconomic losses by substituting quicker and surer compensation of any unmet economic losses.     

Putting fault back into products liability: A modest reconstruction of tort theory

This paper postulates that the proper function of tort law is to provide protection from, and redress of, non-consensual invasions of individual rights of person and property. It then proceeds to analyze and criticize, in that context, several theories of the law of unintentional torts including traditional English negligence law and the models of Posner, Fletcher and Epstein. That analysis proceeds in terms of the answers of each theory to a uniform set of questions which must be answered by any theory of the law of unintentional harms. The paper concludes that none of the theories examined is rights-based or, indeed, consistent with the existence of individual rights of person and property.The paper goes on to elucidate a theory of liability which is rights-based. That theory turns out to be variant of traditional English negligence law in which reasonable foreseeability of harm to legally recognized rights or interests is the sole criterion of liability, the burden of precautions on the agent of the harm being explicitly excluded from consideration.Finally, the rights-based theory is applied to the area of products liability. It is demonstrated that this area of the law of unintentional harm does have the same moral foundations as the general law of negligence so that resort to the anomalous, and amoral, constructs of fictitious warranties, strict liability, enterprise liability and the deep pocket is neither appropriate nor necessary.     

The courts: Arbiters of conventional sexual morality on campus

Common wisdom often asserts that colleges are hotbeds of libertine sexual indulgence and that the courts are lenient in dealing with sexually-related matters on campus. Quite a different picture emerges, however, from an examination of the court cases involving serious sexual misconduct in American campus life. Indeed, it may be interpreted as a model of conventional morality. This study examines the appellate court decisions from the fifty states and the federal judicial circuits which relate serious sexual misconduct (defined as that which might or did constitute a criminal offense) to college and university campuses or programs. While there were almost no such cases two decades ago, the number has grown dramatically in recent years. The subject matter ranges from discipline or termination of professors and students charged with illegal or immoral sexual behavior to the assessment of liability in damage suits against institutions, and even their administrators, when they failed to provide a safe campus environment, and harm resulted to someone.