THE PROBLEM OF MASS TORTS

Law and Philosophy -     

COMPARATIVE CONTRIBUTION AND INTENTIONAL TORTS: A REMAINING ROADBLOCK TO DAMAGES APPORTIONMENT

In November of 1974, recording artist Connie Francis was a guest at the Howard Johnson Motor Lodge in Westbury, New York. In the early morning hours she was criminally assaulted by an unknown man who came through sliding glass doors that appeared to be locked, but were apparently capable of being easily unsecured form the outside. In a suit for negligence against Howard Johnson, Ms. Francis received a jury verdict of $2.5 million to compensate her for her pain and suffering and for future lost earnings. The rapist who escaped never answered for his crime to the people of New York nor to Ms. Francis in damages for his intentional tort of battery.¹     

THE EVOLUTION AND THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS OF CHINESE CONFLICTS LAW FOR TORTS

The legislation of choice-of-law rules for torts has a long history in China. General Principles of the Civil Law of the People＇s Republic of China of 1986 （GPCL）, Maritime Act of the People＇s Republic of China of 1992 （Maritime Act） and Act of the People＇s Republic of China on Civil Aviation of 1995 （Civil Aviation Act）provide respectively the choice-of-law rules for general tort, maritime tort and limitation of liability for maritime claims as well as tort arising out of civil aircraft. The Act of the People＇s Republic of China on the Application of Laws in Foreign-Related Civil Relations of 2010 （PIL-Act） not only brings developments and changes to conflict rules for tort in general, but also provide choice-of-law rules for product liability, infringement of the right of personality via the internet and liability arising from an infringement of intellectual property rights, which marks that Chinese conflicts law has entered into a new developmental stage and taken on several new trends： （1） Chinese conflicts law system for torts has been basically set up; （2） Chinese choice-of-law rules for torts are becoming more and more diversified,＂ （3） the prineiple of party autonomy has been fully introduced to tort liability; and （4） judicial interpretations issued or to be issued by the Supreme People＇s Court will still play an important role in judicial practice.     

OPTIMALITY CONDITION OF PLACE OF INJURY RULE IN CROSS-BORDER INTERNET TORTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TURKEY

Place of injury rule is not always optimal. In this paper, we measure the optimality condition of place of injury rule under strict liability. We develop an extended new model that departs from the efficient condition of choice of law rule by O＇Hara ＆ Ribstein2. The first part of our model proposes the optimal amount of precaution in cross-border internet torts under strict liability. The second part of the model indicates the optimality condition of the place of injury rule. Our model shows that the choice of injury rule is not always optimal However, Article 34/II of Turkish Act on Private International and Procedural Law accepts that the choice of injury rule is always optimal so that Article 34/11 is inefficient and wealth destroying. In conclusion, we suggest that Article 34/11 should not be a mandatory rule. It should grant discretion to judges in order to measure the optimality conditions of both place of injury rule and place of conduct rule in each case. Our model will guide judges to measure the optimality conditions of choice of law rules.     

A NON-SOLUTION TO A NON-PROBLEM: A COMMENT ON ALAN STRUDLER'S“MASS TORTS AND MORAL PRINCIPLES”

Law and Philosophy -