Intentional Torts Posts

October 2018 Council Updates

During its meeting in New York City on October 18 and 19, the ALI Council reviewed drafts for seven Institute projects. Drafts or portions of drafts for six projects received Council approval, subject to the meeting discussion and to the usual prerogative to make nonsubstantive editorial improvements.

Restating the Intentional Torts to Persons: Seeing the Forest and the Trees

and

The five thoughtful, incisive articles by Professors Bernstein, Chamallas, Geistfeld, Moore, and Sugarman offer a breathtaking range of perspectives on the Restatement, Third of Torts: Intentional Torts to Persons (“ITR”). Some view tort law from the widest vantage point, inquiring whether this forest deserves its own appellation or should instead be assimilated to the rest of tort’s greenery. Some focus more on the trees–on the distinct doctrines that characterize the torts and defenses that ITR is restating. In this response, we engage with the participants at both levels.

Assumption of Risk and Consent in the Twenty-First Century

and

In his Chancellor’s lecture at UCI School of Law, “Assumption of Risk and Consent in the Twenty-First Century,” Kenneth W. Simons discusses the definitions of consent and assumption of risk with illustrations referencing Harry Houdini, the infamous “Flopper” ride from Coney Island, and Sluggerrr the Kansas City Royals mascot hitting a fan with a hot dog.

Conceptualizing the Intentional Torts

According to the most recent draft of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Intentional Torts to Persons, the intentional torts protect the rightholder’s interests differently from negligence-based rules and strict liability, placing them into a distinct substantive category. This conceptualization, however, does not provide courts with adequate guidance on how to formulate the element of intent.

12