An Agenda for Future Research in Forensic Economics: Topics from NAFE Surveys and Additional Proposals

This paper provides suggestions for future research by forensic economists, focused upon personal injury and wrongful death cases. The paper is particially based on questions from our 10 surveys of NAFE members over 25 years, in which members were directly asked to rank future areas of forensic economic research in importance. We discuss answers to important questions where there is little or no consensus among respondents, and where consensus is reasonably clear, as this may influence topics chosen for future research. We also discuss research topics by drawing on our own experience as forensic economists.

To punish or not punish: a comparative analysis of the legislative treatment of exemplary damages in Commonwealth jurisdictions

<p>Exemplary damages are an exceptional and controversial civil remedy.1 Though private litigation generally falls under the radar, exemplary damages often draw public interest due to the highly charged nature of the cases that concern this award.2 This paper outlines the different legislative approaches that the Commonwealth jurisdictions of New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom take to exemplary damages in the areas of personal injury, property, intellectual property, trade and commerce, media, employment and miscellaneous areas. This paper does not address the availability of exemplary damages in procedural legislation. The research process involved finding legislative references to exemplary damages in these jurisdictions and categorising these references. Relevant parliamentary materials and commentary have also been included. This paper concludes that exemplary damages should be awarded in New Zealand and that New Zealand’s current generous approach towards awarding exemplary damages in legislation is appropriate.</p>

To punish or not punish: a comparative analysis of the legislative treatment of exemplary damages in Commonwealth jurisdictions

<p>Exemplary damages are an exceptional and controversial civil remedy.1 Though private litigation generally falls under the radar, exemplary damages often draw public interest due to the highly charged nature of the cases that concern this award.2 This paper outlines the different legislative approaches that the Commonwealth jurisdictions of New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom take to exemplary damages in the areas of personal injury, property, intellectual property, trade and commerce, media, employment and miscellaneous areas. This paper does not address the availability of exemplary damages in procedural legislation. The research process involved finding legislative references to exemplary damages in these jurisdictions and categorising these references. Relevant parliamentary materials and commentary have also been included. This paper concludes that exemplary damages should be awarded in New Zealand and that New Zealand’s current generous approach towards awarding exemplary damages in legislation is appropriate.</p>

Are You There, Law? It's Me, Semen

Joining a conversation about menstruation and the law, this Essay interprets “law” to mean regulation––a source of burden, constraint, and interference justified by reason. The object of my regulatory agenda is a substance perceived by Western thinkers at least since Aristotle as the superior counterpart to menstrual fluid.1 Traditions that celebrate semen as vital or affirmative, while recoiling from and controlling the other gendered emission that hurts no one, get reality backward. Law as burden, constraint, and interference ought to regulate semen and leave menstrual fluid alone. Contrast the two substances. One of them started out with the potentially useful function of building a uterine lining. That possibility concluded, menstrual fluid is benign. The other effluvium started out with the potentially useful function of launching a pregnancy. Pregnancy is a good thing when it is desired by the person who has to live with the bulk of pregnancy’s detriments. Along with its capacity to do an important job, semen causes quite the array of harms. A statute on point for this purpose, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, regulates material that “may cause substantial personal injury or substantial illness during or as a proximate result of any customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use.”2 Because semen “has the capacity to produce personal injury or illness to man through ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through any body surface,” it also aligns with the definition of “toxic” in the statute.3 Judges, policymakers, litigants, and ordinary people can all learn from well-established legal labels to understand semen as a stark example of an externality. Nothing in this statute impedes the characterization I propose: The FHSA lists substances that lie outside its purview,4 and semen is not among them. Labeling, containment, and emergency protocols—splash protection, if you like—are the hazardous-substance safety impositions I would apply to semen.

7. Special duty problems: economic loss

This chapter explains when and how the courts have found that a duty of care should be owed by defendants for purely economic loss. This differs from ‘consequential’ economic loss, where financial loss is suffered as a secondary consequence of another harm, such as personal injury or property damage. The tort of negligence distinguishes between these, using duty of care as a device to control whether and when claimants will be able to recover their pure economic losses. The discussions cover the meaning of ‘pure’ economic loss; exceptions to the exclusionary rule; claims for pure economic loss in negligence before Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990]; and extended applications of the principles established in Hedley Byrne v Heller [1963].

Tort conflicts rules in cross-border multi-party litigation: Which law has a closer or the closest connection?

This article compares Owen v. Galgey under Article 4 Rome II Regulation and YANG Shuying v. British Carnival Cruise under Article 44 Chinese Conflicts Act in the context of cross-border multi-party litigation on tort liability. The questions raised in these two cases include how to interpret the tort conflicts rules of lex loci delicti, lex domicilii communis and the closer/closest connection test when determining the applicable law. In particular, as regards the meaning of lex loci delicti, the notion of ‘damage’, the common habitual residence of the parties and the criteria to determine the closer/closest connection, different interpretations were provided in these two cases. In order to clarify certain ambiguity of tortious applicable law rules in cross-border multi-party litigation, a comparative study of Chinese and European tort conflicts rules is conducted. This article does not intend to reach a conclusion as to which law is better between the Rome II Regulation and the Chinese Conflicts Act, but rather highlights a common challenge faced by both Chinese courts and English courts in the field of international tortious litigation on personal injury and how to tackle such challenge in an efficient way under current legislation.

Assessing Economic Damages in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Litigation: The State of Arizona

This article provides a framework for calculating economic damages in personal injury and wrongful death litigation in Arizona by providing the information necessary to produce opinions and testimony that conform to Arizona laws, rules, regulations, and practice.

Modelling and Analysis of On-Site Emergency Plan of a Major Accident Hazard in a LPG Bottling Plant

As an organization there is a range of responsibilities and legislation that require you to have a plan to ensure the safety of employees, customers and stakeholders who may be on site when an emergency occurs. Equally important is the ability of facility to react quickly to an emergency, saving time and money in restoring normal business. A well thought out, coordinated response helps prevent personal injury, property damage, and lessen the resulting hazard. When an organization plans on how it will respond to an emergency threatening its operations, it is more likely to survive the incident. During a large-scale disaster, local response agencies may be overwhelmed and unable to immediately respond to the organization site. The modelling and analysis of threats in a plant is not just for post hazard analysis, it includes all the working procedures when a hazard occurs.

The Erroneous Selection of the Full Social Security Age as the Terminal Date for Lost Earnings Projections

It seems to be increasingly common that some personal injury lost earnings projections are being extended by some experts to the “Normal Retirement Age” (NRA) – the age where workers can receive full, unreduced Social Security benefits. The selection of this age often implies a rejection of the worklife expectancy. However, statistics on claiming behavior of Social Security benefit recipients show that only a minority of recipients wait until the NRA to claim benefits. We use actual claiming behavior and the respective ages to show the use of the NRA for determining the ending date of lost earnings projections, instead of the well-researched worklife expectancy, results in exaggerated and speculative lost earnings damages.

8. Pre-Action Protocols

This chapter considers Protocol practice in general, the aims of Protocol, the basic content of all Protocols, and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct (PDPAC). It looks at the consequences of non-compliance with Protocol or the PDPAC. It discusses the occasions on which it may be appropriate to issue proceedings without complying with Protocol practice, and some pre-action applications that may be made under the Civil Procedure Rules. It also provides a more detailed look at two Pre-Action Protocols—the Personal Injury Protocol and the Construction and Engineering Protocol.