On judgment proofness in the case of bilateral harm

This paper defies the widely held belief concerning the unambiguous superiority of negligence in settings of judgment proofness. We analyze a set-up with bilateral harm, bilateral care, and potential judgment proofness by one party to the accident. We establish that strict liability with a defense of contributory negligence can perform better than simple negligence and negligence with a defense of contributory negligence. It is shown that the former liability rule can better establish a discontinuity in individual costs conducive to inducing efficient care than the other rules.

Mass torts and moral principles

This paper examines moral problems that arise when assigning liability in causally problematic mass exposure tort cases. It examines the relevance of different conceptions of corrective justice for such assignments of liability. It explores an analogy between the expressive role of punishment and the expressive role of tort, and argues that the imposition of liability in causally problematic mass exposure cases can be justified by appeal to expressive considerations.     

Intentional torts claims in medical cases

Civil liability legislation enacted in each Australian jurisdiction following the Ipp Report recommendations created a clear divide between "negligence" and "intentional" torts. The common law action for trespass to the person is to varying extents maintained in the approaches taken by the State and Territory legislatures. This article explores the potential application of intentional torts claims in a medical context in light of recent case law. It identifies advantages for plaintiffs who plead intentional tort claims, including onus of proof, causation, remoteness, the quantum of compensatory damages and the availability of aggravated and exemplary damages.     

An economic theory of intentional torts

The topic of intentional torts is, at first glance, an unpromising one for economics. ‘Intent’ is not a normal part of the economist's vocabulary and does not appear to correspond to any concept in economics. Perhaps this is why there is so little economic writing on intentional torts as such.¹ We shall argue, however, that the concept of intentional tort can be given a coherent economic meaning and we shall try to show that the common law treatment of intentional torts can be explained on the hypothesis that the common law attempts to promote efficiency.     

Genomics and toxic torts: dismantling the risk-injury divide

Emerging genetic and molecular technologies are revolutionizing our understanding of the relationship between genes and the environment. This Article develops an innovative framework for understanding the implications of the genomic revolution for the law of toxic torts. Professor Grodsky demonstrates how new technologies are poised to challenge longstanding distinctions between legally inconsequential "risk" and remediable "injury," and how the U.S. legal system will need to adapt to this emerging reality. If the law remains wedded to conventional notions of injury, it will ignore the fruits of a scientific revolution and thus may forego new remedial opportunities as yet unimagined. This is particularly significant given that twenty-first century medicine strives to "go beyond the limitations of biology" and detect, prevent, and treat disease at the molecular level. The transformative and rapidly evolving technologies of the genomic era will present herculean challenges for the legal system. But opportunities to fashion new remedies and create new efficiencies must not be overlooked in the process. Professor Grodsky recommends legal approaches to balance the goals of deterrence and legal restraint in an age of accelerating scientific change.     

Jurisdiction problems regarding Internet torts: Critical remarks

As the facts that led to the Dow Jones/Gutnick-decision of the High Court of Australia (10 December 2002) illustrate, the Internet is a powerful platform for communication. Its continuous worldwide accessibility urges discussion of a number of questions regarding tort jurisdiction. These are the starting points for some critical remarks regarding states' reciprocal claims to cross-border activities and the way in which they deal with the interests of the involved parties. For tort jurisdiction, the paper proposes and applies criteria for the assessment of the place where the harmful event has occurred or may occur (art. 5, subsection 3 Regulation 44/2001), as explained by the European Court of Justice of the European Union. Special attention is hereby given to some particularities that characterize Internet torts. On the one hand it concerns the alleged global assignment of jurisdiction that art. 5, subsection 3 may lead to and on the other hand the scope of the assigned jurisdiction in the court of the place where the damage occurs. The European approach is confronted with the principles of personal jurisdiction that are embedded in long arm statutes and the Due Process Clause, as applied in some leading American cases regarding Internet jurisdiction. It leads to suggestions regarding the development of a marginal test for the reasonableness of the jurisdiction art. 5, subsection 3 could lead to in a particular case, as well from the point of view of the weight of the connecting factor as to the scope of the jurisdiction that is based upon it.     

Technology and torts: Memory costs, nondurable precautions and interference effects

This article examines the influence of nondurable precaution technologies on the expansion of tort awards. We provide four contributions to the literature. First, we present a general, formal model on durable and non-durable precaution technology that focuses on memory costs. Second, because liability exposure creates interference, we argue that tort law perpetuates the expansion of awards. Third, because plaintiffs do not consider the social costs of interference effects, private litigation induces socially excessive suits. Fourth, while new harm-reducing technologies likely increase accident rates, such technologies also raise the ratio of trial costs to harm, leaving undetermined the overall effect of new technologies on the rate of litigation.     

挥发性有机溶剂的危害及滥用

本文简要介绍了挥发性有机溶剂对人体的危害及其存在的可能性，分析了几类人群对此类物质形成滥用、依赖的因素及与此相关的部分规定，提醒注意此类具有隐匿性的滥用物质。     

Moral theories of torts: Their scope and limits: Part II

One approach to legal theory is to provide some sort of rational reconstruction of all or of a large body of the common law. For philosophers of law this has usually meant trying to rationalize a body of law under one or another principle of justice. This paper explores the efforts of the leading tort theorists to provide a moral basis - in the sense of rational reconstruction based on alleged moral principles - for the law of torts. The paper is divided into two parts. In the first part I consider and reject the view that tort law is best understood as falling either within the ambit of the principle of retributive justice, a comprehensive theory of moral responsibility, or an ideal of fairness inherent in the idea that one should impose on others only those risks others impose on one. The second part of the paper distinguishes among various conceptions of corrective or compensatory justice and considers arguments — including previous ones by the author himself — to the effect that tort law is best understood as rooted in principles of corrective justice. This paper argues that although the principles of justice may render defensible many (but by no means all) of the claims to repair and to liability recognized in torts, it cannot explain why we have adopted a tort system as the approach to vindicating those claims. Some other principle — probably not one of justice — is needed to explain why it is that the victim's claim to repair is satisfied by having his losses shifted to his injurer — rather than through some other means of doing so. The paper concludes that the law of torts cannot be understood — in the sense of being given a rational reconstruction — under any one principle of morality.