DOCSLIB.ORG

Torts – Supplemental Materials Part II

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Torts – Supplemental Materials Part II Torts – Supplemental Materials Part II Professor Gregory Dolin Section 608-339 Fall 2011 ROBERT RIGHT v. KIMBERLY BREEN SC 17439 SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT 277 Conn. 364; 890 A.2d 1287; 2006 Conn. LEXIS 55 November 28, 2005, Argued February 28, 2006, Officially Released defendant--a 1989 head-on collision, an incident in the KATZ, J. The issue in this certified appeal is early 1990s in which he backed a vehicle into a pole, and whether a plaintiff in a negligence action must be a 1995 high impact collision in which the plaintiff's awarded nominal damages, thereby making the vehicle was hit from behind on the highway--as well as defendant potentially liable for costs, when the defendant accidents that occurred after the May, 2000 collision--a admits liability but denies having caused the alleged 2001 rear impact collision, and a 2002 low impact injury, and the fact finder thereafter concludes that the collision. Using a verdict form provided by the plaintiff, plaintiff failed to prove that he suffered any injury as a the jury returned a verdict of zero economic damages and result of the defendant's conduct. This case affords us an zero noneconomic damages, and the trial court accepted opportunity to address this court's statement in Keller v. the verdict. Carone, 138 Conn. 405, 406-407, 85 A.2d 489 (1951), that a defendant's admission of liability establishes that the plaintiff has suffered a "legal injury" and therefore is The plaintiff then filed motions to set aside the entitled to "at least nominal damages." verdict and for additur, arguing that, under Connecticut case law, he was entitled to at least nominal damages *** because he had suffered a technical legal injury that The record discloses the following relevant facts and admittedly had been caused by the defendant. … The procedural history. In May, 2000, the plaintiff had trial court granted the plaintiff's motions, setting aside stopped his automobile at a red traffic light when it was the jury's verdict and awarding the plaintiff $1, "… struck from behind by a vehicle driven by the defendant. premised upon the defendant's admission of negligence." There was minor damage to the plaintiff's vehicle, but no The plaintiff filed a bill of costs … The trial court physical injuries were reported at the accident scene. awarded the plaintiff the $ 467.10 in nonmedical costs, in Thereafter, the plaintiff brought this action, alleging that, addition to the $ 1 nominal damage award…. 4 as a result of the defendant's negligence, he had suffered bodily injury leading to both economic and noneconomic 4 In light of the jury's verdict in her favor; see damages. In her answer, the defendant admitted that the footnote 3 of this opinion; the defendant also vehicle she was operating had struck the plaintiff's filed a bill of costs, pursuant to § 52-257, vehicle. She denied, however, the plaintiff's allegation requesting $ 681. The trial court implicitly denied that "the injuries and damages suffered by the plaintiff this request when it awarded costs to the plaintiff. were a result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant . ." The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court …. At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence concerning his injuries that allegedly had resulted from the impact of *** the collision. Because the defendant contended that the [W]e are not inclined to obliterate the distinction plaintiff's injuries were the result of various other between intentional and unintentional conduct in terms automobile accidents, the plaintiff also presented of legal consequences which it serves to implement. evidence concerning accidents in which he had been Where the plaintiff's right has been intentionally invaded, involved prior to the May, 2000 collision with the its vindication in a court of law and the award of nominal 1 and even exemplary damages serves the policy of deterrence in a real sense. It is difficult to imagine what purpose would be furthered by permitting anyone who is jostled in a crowd or otherwise suffers some unintended contact with his person or injury to his dignity to set in motion the judicial machinery necessary for a recovery of nominal damages. That judges and juries have more important business to occupy them is as true today as it was in ancient times when the rule originated. There is nothing arcane about the wisdom of not cluttering the courts with trivia." Thus, this court clarified our common law to reflect the different treatment accorded to intentional and negligent acts--allowing recovery of nominal damages where a plaintiff's right intentionally has been invaded, but allowing recovery only upon proof of causation and of actual damages where a plaintiff's right negligently has been invaded. *** Such a result is consistent with our case law holding that the "essential elements of a cause of action in negligence are well established: duty; breach of that duty; causation; and actual injury." Without proof of each of these elements, a plaintiff's cause fails entirely, and he is not entitled to have the question of damages considered. This is because conduct that is merely negligent, without proof of an actual injury, is not considered to be a significant interference with the public interest such that there is any right to complain of it, or to be free from it. The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to reverse the judgment of the trial court and to remand the case to the trial court with direction to render judgment for the defendant and to modify the order of costs accordingly. In this opinion the other justices concurred. 2 SHIRLEY HALE v. ERWIN OSTROW, ET AL. No. W2003-01256-SC-R11-CV SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE, AT JACKSON 166 S.W.3d 713; 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 612 April 6, 2005, Argued July 1, 2005, Filed street to check for traffic. As she looked up, she tripped OPINION BY: E. RILEY ANDERSON over a chunk of concrete and fell into the street. Ms. Hale's left hip was crushed in the fall, and she required extensive medical care. We granted review to determine whether the property owners owed a duty to a person injured off the The bushes that had overgrown the sidewalk were owners' property as a result of a hazard existing on the located in front of 1073 Mississippi Boulevard. That owners' property and if so, to determine whether the property, a vacant lot, was owned by the defendants Max hazard was the cause of the injury. The trial court Ostrow, Erwin Ostrow, and Rose Ostrow (collectively, granted summary judgment to the defendant property "the Ostrows" or "defendants"). The crumbled sidewalk, owners, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. After and the spot where Ms. Hale actually fell, were located carefully reviewing the record and applicable authority, in front of 1063 Mississippi Boulevard. That property we conclude that the defendants owed a duty of care to was not owned by the defendants. the plaintiff to ensure that the sidewalk was not Ms. Hale filed suit against the Ostrows in the Circuit obstructed by overgrown bushes and was passable. Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, on theories of Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the premises liability and public nuisance. The Ostrows plaintiff, there are genuine issues of material fact as to moved for summary judgment on the negligence claim, whether the defendants' breach caused her injury. We arguing that a property owner owes no duty of care to a therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. person injured on another's property. Because Ms. Hale's injury occurred when she tripped on the sidewalk located Background in front of 1063 Mississippi Boulevard, rather than in The record on summary judgment contains the front of the Ostrows' property at 1073 Mississippi following facts, which we consider in the light most Boulevard, the Ostrows argued that they owed no duty to favorable to the plaintiff, the nonmoving party. On May Ms. Hale because she never entered their property. 27, 1998, plaintiff Shirley Hale ("Ms. Hale") was Moreover, they argued that her injury was caused by the walking home from a bus stop in Memphis, Tennessee. defective sidewalk, not by the overgrown bushes. She had taken a different bus than usual and so was The trial court granted summary judgment to the walking a route along a sidewalk that she did not Ostrows without stating any grounds, and the Court of normally travel. As she proceeded south on Mississippi Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals held that Ms. Boulevard, a busy street, she noticed that the sidewalk Hale could not succeed on either a theory of premises ahead was blocked. Bushes protruding from 1073 liability or of public nuisance because she could not Mississippi Boulevard had overgrown the sidewalk and establish that the overgrowth was a proximate cause of had grown around a telephone pole located on the her injury. The intermediate appellate court relied on the sidewalk, blocking Ms. Hale's way. Ms. Hale determined fact that Ms. Hale never actually reached the bushes that she had to leave the sidewalk and enter the street in before she fell. Judge Kirby dissented from the Court of order to bypass the obstruction. She noticed that the Appeals' opinion, arguing that there existed a genuine sidewalk was "crumbled." As she left the sidewalk, but issue of material fact as to whether Ms. Hale had left the before she reached the bushes, Ms. Hale looked into the 3 sidewalk and tripped because of her need to avoid the Conclusion bushes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wrongful Life in the Age of CRISPR-CAS: Using the Legal Fiction of “The Conceptual Being” to Redress Wrongful Gamete Manipulation
    Wrongful Life in the Age of CRISPR-CAS: Using the Legal Fiction of “The Conceptual Being” to Redress Wrongful Gamete Manipulation Barbara Pfeffer Billauer J.D., M.A., Ph.D.* ABSTRACT Virtually all ‘wrongful life’ actions (claims brought by children for pre-birth injuries) are denied. The basis for this doctrine pivots around the refusal to allow recompense for actions which cause harm, but also result in the child’s birth. We, therefore, are faced with a legal lacuna, where children suffering serious harms as a result of the latest reproductive technologies are legal orphans. This Article details the avenues of potential harm caused by modern reproductive technologies, which I call wrongful genetic manipulation (WGM), where the injured child would have no right of action. To address this void, I create a novel remedy via a legal fiction, “the conceptual being,” which would enable these children to bypass current restrictions and claim an expanded class of damages, including pain and suffering, emotional injury, and unjust enrichment. *About the author: Dr. Billauer holds academic appointments at the University of Porto, Portugal, where she is a Professor in the International Program on Bioethics, and the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., where she is a research Professor of Scientific Statecraft. She has advanced degrees in law and public health and sits on the UNESCO committee currently compiling a Casebook on Bioethics. She has also edited Professor Amnon Carmi’s Casebook on Bioethics for Judges. Prior to transitioning to academia, Dr. Billauer practiced medical malpractice, toxic tort, and products liability law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wide World of Torts: Reviewing Franklin & Rabin's Tort Law And
    CASEBOOK REVIEW The Wide World of Torts: Reviewing Franklin & Rabin's Tort Law and Alternatives Bernard W. Bell* Tort Law and Alternatives authored by Stanford Law School pro- fessors Marc Franklin and Robert Rabin, and recently released in its Seventh Edition, continues to serve as an excellent casebook.' To paraphrase the introduction to the American Broadcasting Company's popular sports anthology, the Wide World of Sports, the casebook spans the country2 to bring students the constant variety of tort litiga- tion.3 Tort law is, in a sense, very traditional-late 19th and early 20th century caselaw provides much of its foundation and many of the ba- sic doctrines have long been settled. At the same time, tort law un- dergoes continuous metamorphosis. Franklin and Rabin have man- aged to maintain a good balance between the old chestnuts, such as * Professor, Rutgers Law School (Newark). I attended Stanford Law School (Class of 1981) and was a student in Marc Franklin's Torts class. 1. MARC A. FRANKLIN & ROBERT L. RABIN, TORT LAW AND ALTERNATIVES: CASES AND MATERIALS (7th ed. 2001). 2. In earlier editions of the casebook, the authors predominantly used cases from New York and California state courts. With each edition, the authors have progressively added geographic variety so that the principal cases increasingly come from jurisdictions other than New York and California. In the seventh edition, the authors have added cases from jurisdictions whose cases were not represented among those featured as principal cases in the sixth edition. Id. at 18 (Utah), 24 (Texas), 95 (Florida), 110 (Rhode Island), 186 (Washington), 198 (Nebraska), 207 (Louisiana), 215 (Arizona), 359 (New Mexico), 399, 917 (Iowa), 452 (Oklahoma), 476 (South Carolina), 632 (New Hampshire), 876 (North Dakota).
    [Show full text]
  • Of Rescue and Report: Should Tort Law Impose a Duty to Help Endangered Persons Or Abused Children? Marc A
    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 40 | Number 4 Article 3 1-1-2000 Of Rescue and Report: Should Tort Law Impose a Duty to Help Endangered Persons or Abused Children? Marc A. Franklin Matthew loP eger Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Marc A. Franklin and Matthew Ploeger, Symposium, Of Rescue and Report: Should Tort Law Impose a Duty to Help Endangered Persons or Abused Children?, 40 Santa Clara L. Rev. 991 (2000). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol40/iss4/3 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OF RESCUE AND REPORT: SHOULD TORT LAW IMPOSE A DUTY TO HELP ENDANGERED PERSONS OR ABUSED CHILDREN? Marc A. Franklin* & Matthew Ploeger** I. INTRODUCTION This essay explores whether a civil duty to rescue' should be imposed on a person who has the apparent ability to save another person or to prevent that person from entering a po- sition of peril.2 It also examines the related question of * Frederick I. Richman Professor, Stanford Law School. LL.B., Cornell Law School; A.B., Cornell University. A version of this essay was presented at the Santa Clara Law Review Symposium, Law, Ethics, and the Good Samari- tan, held at Santa Clara University School of Law on March 24, 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Duties to Rescue: Moral, Civil, and Criminal Author(S): Arthur Ripstein Source: Law and Philosophy, Vol
    Three Duties to Rescue: Moral, Civil, and Criminal Author(s): Arthur Ripstein Source: Law and Philosophy, Vol. 19, No. 6, The Moral and Legal Limits of Samaritan Duties (Nov., 2000), pp. 751-779 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3505073 . Accessed: 10/03/2011 12:14 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Law and Philosophy. http://www.jstor.org ARTHURRIPSTEIN THREEDUTIES TO RESCUE: MORAL, CIVIL,AND CRIMINAL1 (Accepted18 June1999) I hope to do three things in this paper: first, provide an intui- tively plausible rationalefor the distinctionthat private law draws between nonfeasanceand misfeasance, a distinctionwhich leads to the conclusion that there is no tort duty to rescue; second, show how a criminalpenalty for certainfailures to rescue might nonethe- less be appropriate;and third, use the example of legal duties to rescue to examine some broaderissues in political philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Affirmative Duties in Tort Harold F
    AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES IN TORT HAROLD F. McNIECE" JOHN V. THORNTON$ FORTY years ago Bohlen expressed the view that "There is no dis- tinction more deeply rooted in the common law and more fundamental than that between misfeasance and non-feasance, between active mis- conduct working positive injury to others and passive inaction, a fail- ure to take positive steps to benefit cthers, or to protect them from harm not created by any wrongful act of the defendant." 1 The line between "active misconduct" and "passive inaction" is not easily drawn. The range of human conduct theoretically susceptible of tort consequence runs from the zenith of clearly affirmative mis- conduct (misfeasance) to the nadir of clear inaction (nonfeasance), but there exists an area of shadow-land where misfeasance and non- feasance coalesce. The existence of this shadow-land is well illustrated by Bohlen's famous example. 2 For one to use a chattel known to be defective in such a way as to create a serious risk of harm to others is palpably a misfeasance. On the other hand a failure to take steps to provide protection for people who come on one's premises without in- vitation and without permission is patently passive inaction, a non- feasance. But between those extreme cases consider a median situation where one uses a chattel for a particular purpose without having ascer- tained by inspection or othenvise whether it is fit for that purpose, with knowledge that the article, if defective, will create a serious risk of harm to others. Here there exists an admixture of nonfeasance and misfeasance.
    [Show full text]
  • Claims of Wrongful Life and Wrongful Birth - NY by Victoria Belniak
    October 2006 Health Care Law Claims of wrongful life and wrongful birth - NY By Victoria Belniak Background The New York courts have long struggled with determining what injuries are properly compensable when a child is born impaired, and the parents are able to establish that a health care provider was negligent in failing to detect the impairment prenatally or to advise the parents of the likelihood of the impairment. Typically, in such cases, parents will argue that had they been advised of the impairment before the child was born, they would have chosen to terminate the pregnancy. In wrestling with the thorny damages issues presented by such cases, the New York courts have made a distinction between damages stemming from “wrongful life” and those stemming from “wrongful birth.” Issues What is the difference between a claim for wrongful life and one for wrongful birth, and can recovery be had under such theories? Comments Wrongful life claims are typically initiated on behalf of an impaired infant, seeking to recover damages for the very fact that he or she was born at all. The New York courts have rejected such claims, signaling an unwillingness to hold that life, even if marred by disability or disease, is a compensable injury. In Alquijay v. St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital, 63 N.Y.2d 978, 473 N.E.2d 244 (1984), a mother claimed that had she known that her baby would be born with Down’s syndrome, she would have terminated the pregnancy. The Court of Appeals held that there is no cause of action for wrongful life, and life, even when the baby is born in an impaired state, does not constitute an injury.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Challenge to the Legal Doctrine of Rescue Gerald L
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Cleveland State Law Review Law Journals 1965 Moral Challenge to the Legal Doctrine of Rescue Gerald L. Gordon Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Torts Commons How does access to this work benefit oy u? Let us know! Recommended Citation Gerald L. Gordon, Moral Challenge to the Legal Doctrine of Rescue, 14 Clev.-Marshall L. Rev. 334 (1965) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Moral Challenge to the Legal Doctrine of Rescue Gerald L. Gordon* . a certain man... fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite .. came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan * . came where he was... and went to him, and bound up his wounds... and set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn ... Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spend- est more, when I come again, I will repay thee... St. Luke 10: 30-351 T HE AGE-OLD DICHOTOMY between Anglo-American law and morality in one vital area of personal responsibility-the duty to aid one in dire peril-was revealingly demonstrated anew in the aftermath of the sordid Bronx events of March 13, 1964.
    [Show full text]
  • Rescuers and Good Samaritans 89
    1971] RESCUERS AND GOOD SAMARITANS 89 RESCUERS AND GOOD SAMARITANS* ALLEN M. LINDEN* In the past, tort law has displayed a reluctance to impose a duty to rescue or to compensate rescuers injured during a rescue attempt Furthermore, tort liability has been imposed upon would-be rescuers whose incompetence has led to an abortive attempt. Professor Linden argues that this reluctance to promote rescue is out-dated in a modern society which espouses humani tarian ideals. The author examines Canadian and English jurisprudence to demonstrate the recent recognition of the need to encourage and compensate Good Samaritans. New tort duties to render aid, which have been fashioned by analogy to criminal legislation, are analysed as well as the rescuer's duty which arises once the rescue has been undertaken. Professor Linden also dis cusses the applicability of the principle of voluntary assumption of risk to a res cuer's claim for compensation for injuries sustained during the course of the res cue. The author concludes by suggesting that the concept of contributory negligence be used to dissuade rash rescue attempts in place of the current judicial practice of complete denial of compensation. Everyone admires a rescuer and a Good Samaritan. The common law, however, in years gone by did not go out of its way to reward such conduct. A rescuer injured while attempting to save someone in peril used to be denied tort recovery. Someone who acted as a Good Sama ritan might also be mulcted in damages if his effort was bungled. At the same time, no one was obligated to render assistance, even though he could do so without danger to himself.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Wrongful Life: Bridging the Boundary Between Tort and Family Law Philip G
    University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications 1993 Rethinking Wrongful Life: Bridging the Boundary between Tort and Family Law Philip G. Peters Jr. University of Missouri School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs Part of the Family Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Philip G. Peters Jr., Rethinking Wrongful Life: Bridging the Boundary between Tort and Family Law, 67 Tul. L. Rev. 397 (1992-1993) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. RETHINKING WRONGFUL LIFE: BRIDGING THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN TORT AND FAMILY LAW* PHILIP G. PETERS, JR.** I. WRONGFUL LIFE DocTRINE ....................... 400 A. The Majority View ............................ 401 B. The Minority View ............................. 402 C. Barriers to Considerationof a Child Support Claim ......................................... 407 II. THE NORMATIVE BASIS OF THE CLAIM ............ 411 A. FairnessBetween the Child and the Tortfeasor. 411 B. The Inadequacy of ParentalActions for Wrongful Birth ................................ 415 C. FairlyAllocating ResponsibilitiesBetween the Parentsand the Defendant ..................... 418 D. Avoiding the Disadvantagesof Wrongful Life Suits .........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Distinguishing Wrongful from "Rightful" Life
    Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy (1985-2015) Volume 6 Issue 1 Article 7 1990 Distinguishing Wrongful from "Rightful" Life Melinda A. Roberts Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp Recommended Citation Melinda A. Roberts, Distinguishing Wrongful from "Rightful" Life, 6 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 59 (1990). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp/vol6/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy (1985-2015) by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DISTINGUISHING WRONGFUL FROM "RIGHTFUL" LIFE Melinda A. Roberts* I. ACTIONS FOR WRONGFUL LIFE Persons contemplating parenthood are far more cognizant of their chances of having a handicapped infant than were their parents or grandpar- ents. Women over thirty-five, for example, are likely to be aware that they have a significant chance of producing a Down's syndrome infant and may choose to undergo amniocentesis. If the test reveals Down's syndrome, the woman may legally choose to abort the fetus. Ashkenazi Jews are at risk of producing an infant with Tay-Sachs disease.' Couples from this population may request genetic screening to determine whether they are carriers of the disease. If it is determined that both are carriers, they may choose abortion or decide to avoid pregnancy altogether. Finally, where the woman has suf- fered from certain diseases during her pregnancy, such as rubella or alcohol- ism, she may realize the risk of bearing a child with mental or physical handicaps and choose to terminate the pregnancy.
    [Show full text]
  • “Wrongful Birth” and “Wrongful Life” Actions
    Statutory Responses to “Wrongful Birth” and “Wrongful Life” Actions William C. Duncan ABSTRACT: As a result of advances in medical technology and the legality of the practice of abortion, a new class of tort actions has developed. Named “wrongful birth” or “wrongful life” actions, they require a plaintiff to argue that but for the negligence of a doctor or medical personnel, a child would have been aborted. A number of states now recognize such actions, but a handful of states have specifically rejected the actions. This article describes the law of this handful of states, describing legislative responses to the wrongful life and birth actions and court judgements assessing challenges to these laws. From the description, it then outlines four major public policy purposes advanced by laws that prohibit the new actions: (1) decreasing medical costs, (2) discouraging abortion, (3) creating a barrier to eugenic campaigns, and (4) defending the sanctity of life. I. INTRODUCTION A “wrongful life” claim is based on a legal fiction whereby an infant brings a case in which she is understood to be alleging that if it were not for the wrongful conduct of the defendant, the child would never have been born.1 By contrast, a “wrongful birth” action is brought by the infant’s family member making the same allegation–were it not for the misconduct of the defendant, this child would not have been born.2 The existence of such actions presuppose two realities, one medical and the other legal. The medical reality is the existence of sophisticated technology that allows a child to be diagnosed with birth defects or abnormalities before birth.3 The second reality is that the claim would make no sense without legal access to abortion 4 Life and Learning XIV (otherwise, how could the “wrongful” birth have been prevented?).4 In the mid-1960's an Illinois court held that a child’s lawsuit against his father alleging that based on the injury of being born illegitimately stated a claim in tort.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Reflections on Strict Liability in Copyright, 44 Colum
    PATRICK R. GOOLD, MORAL REFLECTIONS ON STRICT LIABILITY IN COPYRIGHT, 44 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 123 (2021) Moral Reflections on Strict Liability in Copyright Patrick R. Goold* ABSTRACT Accidental infringement of copyright is a pervasive and largely ignored problem. In the twenty-first century, it has become increasingly easy to infringe copyright unintentionally. When such accidental infringement occurs, copyright law holds the user strictly liable. Prior literature has questioned whether the strict liability standard is normatively defensible. In particular, prior literature has asked whether the strict liability standard ought to be reformed for economic reasons. This Article examines the accidental infringement problem from a new perspective. It considers whether it is fair to hold copyright users strictly liable for accidental infringements of copyright. This Article argues that the strict liability standard is not fair because it results in copyright users being held liable for accidents for which they are not morally responsible. Using the moral philosophy literature on responsibility, this Article explores our intuitions surrounding copyright’s liability standard in order to better understand why strict liability in this context seems “harsh” and “inequitable.” In turn, this provides an argument for reforming copyright’s liability rule and adopting a negligence standard. This Article then argues that, within the United States, the proposed reform to copyright’s liability rule should be accomplished by modifications to the existing fair use doctrine. * Senior Lecturer, The City Law School, London, UK. This Article benefited from helpful feedback from Thomas Bennett, John C.P Goldberg, Dmitry Karshtedt, Rebecca Tushnet, David Simon, and colleagues at The City Law School.
    [Show full text]