Torts: Economic Harm Posts
Recently, in interpreting the False Claims Act’s scienter requirement, the U.S. Supreme Court turned to the traditional, common-law scienter requirements for fraud set forth in the Restatement of the Law Second, Torts, and the Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm.
The California Court of Appeal held that claims for fraudulent inducement were not barred by the economic-loss rule as defined by Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 3
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.
The California Supreme Court looked to § 3 of the Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm in a case involving the examination of the Economic Loss Rule.
Dissenting Associate Justice Samuel Alito cites the Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 28 and Restatement Second of Torts § 876.
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, 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.
The California Supreme Court cited the Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm in its recent decision involving the issue of whether a gas company had a tort duty to guard against purely economic losses.
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.
At today’s 95th Annual Meeting, members of The American Law Institute voted to approve Tentative Draft No. 3 of Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm. Today’s vote marks the completion of this project.