Torts: Economic Harm Posts

The Perils and Promise of Public Nuisance

This article utilizes the opioid litigation to explore the three most common sets of objections to public nuisance: (1) traditionalist, (2) formalist, and (3) institutional. Public nuisance can seem unusual, even outlandish. At worst, it is a potentially capacious mechanism allowing executive branch actors to employ the judicial process to address legislative and regulatory problems. Nevertheless, its perils are easily overstated and its promise overlooked.

Maryland Court of Appeals Adopts Section of Torts 3d: Liability for Economic Harm

In Barclay v. Castruccio, 230 A.3d 80 (Md. 2020), the Court of Appeals of Maryland decided to recognize the tort of intentional interference with a prospective inheritance or gift, and to adopt the standards for that tort as set forth in Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 19.

Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm – Now Available

Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm, completes the fourth installment of the Restatement Third of Torts. This Restatement, for which Dean Ward Farnsworth of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law served as Reporter, covers four principal areas of tort law: unintentional infliction of economic loss, liability for fraud, interference with economic interests, and misuse of legal procedure.

Reporters’ Perspective

Two Restatement projects, Economic Harm Torts and Liability Insurance, were reviewed and approved for the final time by ALI membership at the 2018 Annual Meeting, marking the completion of both projects.

Interference with Contract

When is it a tort to interfere with somebody else’s contract? In this video, project Reporter Ward Farnsworth discusses the development of the tort of interference with economic interests since the Restatement Second of Torts.