Intentional Torts Posts
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.
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.
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.
In this video, project Reporters Ken Simons and Jonathan Cardi discuss what makes a confinement an intentional tort, including confinement by assertion of legal authority.
The faculty-edited Journal of Tort Law is hosting a symposium on the Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Intentional Torts to Persons.
A trio of Wyoming Supreme Court decision released Dec. 19 have established an avenue for plaintiffs to collect damages for privacy invasion in the Cowboy State for the first time.
At its meeting in New York City on October 19 and 20, The American Law Institute’s Council reviewed drafts for eight projects, with the following outcomes:
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.
This article offers a bold proposal: eliminate the intentional tort of battery and merge cases of both the negligent and intentional imposition of physical harm into a single new tort.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court decision dismissing a law professor’s lawsuit against Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law’s former interim dean.