From Liability Shields to Democratic Theory: What We Need from Tort Theory Now

In the United States, one startling response to COVID-19 has been a push for so-called “liability shields,” laws modifying tort doctrine so as to largely eliminate tort liability for negligently causing COVID-19. Though not enacted at the federal level, such changes have been adopted in numerous states. This article excavates and articulates the tort theory that lies behind this puzzlingly response to a pandemic. I call the theory “tort deflationism.” Grounded in modern American conservatism and with a doctrinal pedigree dating back to the 1970s, tort deflationism explains and justifies only minimal tort liability, out of deference to non-governmental actors – especially family, church, and business—and suspicion of government competence and power. Other tort theories should reckon with tort deflationism, and I discuss some challenges of doing so. The contest between tort deflationism and other theories speaks to ongoing debates about the legitimacy of law in pluralist democracies. I urge tort theorists to enter these debates and to consider their implications for tort law itself.

Tortious Civil Liability in Environmental Law

Tort liability consists in the obligation of the one who has committed an injury to indemnify the injured party. Tort liability is a legal operation which, according to the Civil Code, when an unlawful act causing damage is committed, the reverse means compensating the injured party. In the case of the environment, the one who harms is not always sanctioned, so in the case of this issue the legislator has developed a rather broad legislative framework. The common law has become applicable in the field of the environment based on the provisions of art. 135 para. (2) lit. e) of the Constitution, which stipulates that , which stipulates that , which stipulates that, the environment is an area that must have a legal protection so that the state maintains a permanent ecological balance. Rehabilitation of the environment is done by applying sanctions to those concerned. So the institution of tort liability is an instrument in the gear of environmental protection.

Liability from the use of medical artificial intelligence: a comparative study of English and Taiwanese tort laws

Background: Modern artificial intelligence applications are appearing in healthcare and medical practices. Artificial intelligence is used both in medical research and on patients via medical devices. The aim of this paper is to examine and compare English and Taiwanese tort laws in relation to medical artificial intelligence. Methods: The methodologies employed are legal doctrinal analysis and comparative law analysis. Results: The investigation finds that English tort law treats wrong diagnostic or wrong advice as negligent misstatement, and mishaps due to devices as a physical tort under the negligence rule. Negligent misstatement may occur in diagnosis or advisory systems, while a negligent act may occur in products used in the treatment of the patient. Product liability under English common law applies the same rule as negligence. In Taiwan, the general principles of tort law in Taiwan’s Civil Code for misstatement and negligent action apply, whereas the Consumer Protection Act provides for additional rules on product liability of traders. Conclusions: Safety regulations may be a suitable alternative to tort liability as a means to ensure the safety of medical artificial intelligence systems.

Tort Liability, Combatant Activities, and the Question of Over-Deterrence

Immunity from tort liability for losses that are inflicted during warfare is often justified by a supposedly intuitive concern: without immunity, states and combatants will be over-deterred from engaging in combat. In this article, I test this common perception using three frameworks. First, I theoretically analyze the impact of tort liability on relevant state actors’ incentives to engage in warfare. This analysis suggests that tort law is likely to under-deter state actors in relation to their decisions on whether and how to conduct hostilities. Second, I test this conclusion through an original mixed-methods exploratory research, using Israel as a test case. My findings reveal that while tort liability under-deters state actors from engaging in warfare, it can prompt them to implement regulatory measures to minimize the state’s liability. Third, I offer a legal history analysis, exploring why Israel established an immunity from tort liability for losses it inflicts during combat in 1951, and why and how this immunity has expanded since. I show that as the Israel-Palestine conflict prolonged and intensified, state actors began viewing Palestinians’ tort claims as a civilian means of warfare and immunity from liability as the weapon needed for defending Israel’s interests.

Strict Products Liability 2.0: The Triumph of Judicial Reasoning Over Mainstream Tort Theory

Strict products liability has evolved in a manner that is widely misunderstood. The liability rule was first formulated to govern defective products that did not minimally perform one of their ordinary functions as expected by consumers—a malfunction that violates the implied warranty of quality. After adopting this rule, courts began applying it to products that did not malfunction and found that a test for defect based on consumer expectations often is indeterminate or can otherwise unduly limit liability in an important class of cases. To address these problems, most courts adopted the risk-utility test, a form of cost-benefit analysis that functions like the negligence standard of reasonable care. Relying on these cases, the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability embraced the risk-utility test, jettisoned the consumer expectations test, and characterized strict products liability as a misleading label that perpetuates confusion about liability being strict when it instead is based on negligence. In response, a clear majority of courts have rejected this negligence-based framework and affirmed the continued vitality of strict products liability. Puzzled by this unexpected development, mainstream scholars claim that courts are confused by the rhetoric of strict products liability. The prevailing scholarly opinion about this matter is confused; its fixation on negligence ignores the implied warranty rationale for strict products liability. Having been largely formulated as a rule of contract law, the implied warranty is under-theorized as a tort doctrine. Once adequately developed, the tort version of the implied warranty shows why courts have transformed the rule of strict products liability from the last century into a more comprehensive regime—“strict products liability 2.0”—that relies on consumer expectations to incorporate the risk-utility test into the framework of strict products liability. As compared to ordinary negligence liability, the implied warranty defines the safety problem in the normatively appropriate manner, thereby sharpening the inquiry about what’s at stake. In dismissing this important development, mainstream tort theory relies on legal categories that fundamentally differ from the ones courts have used to develop strict products liability with analogical reasoning. Scholars have either resorted to overly general theories of tort liability or have otherwise focused on narrow doctrinal questions. By not engaging in the mid-level categorical theorizing required by analogical reasoning, the mainstream position could not see how this characteristic form of judicial reasoning has created the substantively sound regime of strict products liability 2.0.

Civil Liability for Sex Abuse by Muslim Clergy in Spain

State courts of civil law and common law jurisdictions alike are used to applying the rules of direct and indirect tort liability to Christian churches in different ways and with different results. But recent court decisions have put the issue of the civil liability of religious groups for acts of sex abuse by clergy in a different context, that of Islam. A common denominator in the reasoning of courts worldwide is the relevance of religious authority – authority to appoint and supervise clergy or authority vested in clergy – as an important factor in the attribution of civil liability. But Islam is a religion whose organizational structure and ministers are simply too different from those of the various Christian churches, so that state courts run the risk of wrongly applying to Islamic communities and Muslim entities the same categories and legal principles they usually apply in other, more common, cases of sex abuse.

Liability of Referees: An Analysis of Tort Liability for Wrong Referee Decisions

<p>In an increasing professional sports world, the referees in key tournaments and games have huge responsibility. Their decisions can impact not only on the game but on all the commercial interests involved in that game. This raises the issue of the liability of referees according to tort law. The main problems of liability of referees are the circumstances they work in. They have often only a split-second to make important decisions in the course of a game. The responsibility of a referee is so high that they can determine if a team wins or loses. These decisions can impact on the outcome of a game and consequently affect the financial situation of the clubs, sponsors and sportspeople. If a team is eliminated from a tournament they lose a huge amount of money. There are two legal aspects to consider. One is intention, where a referee might get involved in deliberate match-fixing, and another is negligence. Are match officials liable for their malpractice? Often a referee is not liable for lost chances because there is no causality that the team lost the game only because of a wrong referee decisions. For want of evidence the referee is in most cases not liable. However, is this right? The main thesis of this paper is that there is a liability of referees who act with intention. Referees who influence results negligently should be covered by immunity. However, sports governing body as guardians of the rules of the game should have some liability. They have a usual duty to ensure that a referee is able to manage the game and have it under control. Sports governing bodies may have vicarious liability for referee decisions as they use referees to fulfil their obligations of organising and running tournaments. The business approach of modern professional sport has added to the duties of sports governing bodies. Hence sports governing bodies have an added responsibility to ensure that all resources to support the referee and the rules - such as technical or assistant support - are utilized. These special duties need to be followed and can make sports governing bodies liable.</p>

Liability of Referees: An Analysis of Tort Liability for Wrong Referee Decisions

<p>In an increasing professional sports world, the referees in key tournaments and games have huge responsibility. Their decisions can impact not only on the game but on all the commercial interests involved in that game. This raises the issue of the liability of referees according to tort law. The main problems of liability of referees are the circumstances they work in. They have often only a split-second to make important decisions in the course of a game. The responsibility of a referee is so high that they can determine if a team wins or loses. These decisions can impact on the outcome of a game and consequently affect the financial situation of the clubs, sponsors and sportspeople. If a team is eliminated from a tournament they lose a huge amount of money. There are two legal aspects to consider. One is intention, where a referee might get involved in deliberate match-fixing, and another is negligence. Are match officials liable for their malpractice? Often a referee is not liable for lost chances because there is no causality that the team lost the game only because of a wrong referee decisions. For want of evidence the referee is in most cases not liable. However, is this right? The main thesis of this paper is that there is a liability of referees who act with intention. Referees who influence results negligently should be covered by immunity. However, sports governing body as guardians of the rules of the game should have some liability. They have a usual duty to ensure that a referee is able to manage the game and have it under control. Sports governing bodies may have vicarious liability for referee decisions as they use referees to fulfil their obligations of organising and running tournaments. The business approach of modern professional sport has added to the duties of sports governing bodies. Hence sports governing bodies have an added responsibility to ensure that all resources to support the referee and the rules - such as technical or assistant support - are utilized. These special duties need to be followed and can make sports governing bodies liable.</p>

German Transplants in Estonian Tort Law: General Duties to Maintain Safety

The jurisprudence and case-law approach of German tort law – and, more broadly, German-school legal thinking in general – has found its way into Estonian case law on torts and into Estonia’s scholarly texts on jurisprudence. From among the catalogue of transplants from German tort law that have reached Estonian law or legal practice, the paper focuses on one whose importance cannot be overestimated: the concept of tort liability based on breach of the general duty to maintain safety. This domain has witnessed remarkable change since the beginning of the 2000s, when an analogous concept of liability was still unfamiliar to many Estonian lawyers. The article examines whether and to what extent the concept of liability based on the general duty to maintain safety has become recognised in Estonian legal practice in the years since. Also assessed is the relevant case law to date, for ascertainment of whether any adoption of an equivalent concept of liability has been successful and, in either event, what problems remain to be resolved. The importance of this issue extends far beyond that of individual questions: the recognition of general duties to maintain safety affects our understanding of the very structure of tort law, of that of the general composition of tort, and of the connections that link the individual prerequisites for tort liability. Furthermore, this constellation influences our thought in the field of tort law more generally and our approach to the cases emerging in real-world legal practice.

ADMINISTRATIVE AND TORT LIABILITY AND HYBRID REGULATORY STRUCTURES: PROBLEMS OF CONSTITUTIONALIZATION

Рассматриваются вопросы теории и практики разработки и применения гибридных нормативных конструкций административно-деликтной ответственности с позиций конституционного правопонимания. Подчеркивается, что гибридные нормативные конструкции отражают объективные тенденции усложнения общественных отношений, однако во всяком случае не могут входить в противоречие с требованиями признания и обеспечения неотчуждаемых прав и свобод человека. Оценивая и учитывая профильные акты конституционализации, необходимо адекватно воспринимать их связь с принципом конституционной сдержанности. The issues of theory and practice of development and application of hybrid regulatory structures of administrative and tort liability from the standpoint of constitutional legal understanding are considered. It is emphasized that hybrid normative constructions reflect objective trends in the complication of social relations, but in any case they cannot contradict the requirements for the recognition and provision of inalienable human rights and freedoms. Assessing and taking into account the relevant acts of constitutionalization, it is necessary to adequately perceive their connection with the principle of constitutional restraint.