Two roads diverge for civil recourse theory

Indiana Law Journal

Volumn 88, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 543-567

  Robinette , Christopher J ^a  

^a WIDENER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878247735     PISSN: 00196665     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. JAMES M. ANDERSON, PAUL HEATON & STEPHEN J. CARROLL, THE U. S. EXPERIENCE WITH NO-FAULT AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 1(2010), available at http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND-MG860.pdf;
2. see also ROBERT C. LAFOUNTAIN, RICHARD Y. SCHAUFFLER, SHAUNA M. STRICKLAND, CHANTAL G. BROMAGE, SARAH A. GIBSON & ASHLEY N. MASON, NAT'L CTR. FOR STATE COURTS, EXAMINING THE WORK OF STATE COURTS: AN ANALYSIS OF 2008 STATE COURT CASELOADS 28(2010), available at http://www.courtstatistics.org/ Other-Pages/~/media/Microsites/Files/CSP/EWSC-2008-online.ashx.
3. Goldberg & Zipursky Respond to the Quandaries Facing Civil Recourse Theory, TORTSPROF BLOG (Jan. 12, 2012), http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/ tortsprof72012/01/goldbergzipursky-respond-to-the-quandaries-facing-civil- recourse-theory. html.
4. JOHN C. P. GOLDBERG & BENJAMIN C. ZIPURSKY, OXFORD INTRODUCTIONS TO U. S. LAW: TORTS 396 (2010).
5. See, e.g., JOHN C. P. GOLDBERG & BENJAMIN C. Zipursky, Accidents of the Great Society, 64 MD. L. REV. 364, 403 (2005) ("Our point here is not that [the principle of civil recourse] is demanded by principles of justice, or even morally sound, but that it is the animating idea behind our system of tort law.").
6. JOHN C. P. GOLDBERG, Ten Half-Truths About Tort Law, 42 VAL. U. L. REV. 1221, 1252 (2008).
7. John C. P. Goldberg, Address at the Association of American Law Schools Annual Meeting, Twenty-First Century Tort Theories: A New Audit of Civil Recourse Theory (Jan. 5, 2012) [hereinafter Goldberg Podcast], available at http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/'2012/07/podcast-of-2012-aals-panel- on-civil-recourse-theory.html.
8. Cf. Christopher J. Robinette, Why Civil Recourse Theory Is Incomplete, 78 TENN. L. REV. 431, 433-40 (2011);
9. Jane Stapleton, Evaluating Goldberg & Zipursky's Civil Recourse Theory, 75 FORDHAM L. REV. 1529, 1529-32 (2006).
10. See, e.g., John C. p. Goldberg & Benjamin C. Zipursky, Torts as Wrongs, 88 TEX. L. REV. 917 (2010).
11. John c. P. Goldberg & Benjamin C. Zipursky, Tort Law and Moral Luck, 92 CORNELL L. REV. 1123, 1150 (2007).
12. John C. P. Goldberg, Two Conceptions of Tort Damages: Fair v. Full Compensation, 55 DEPAUL L. REV. 435, 436 (2006).
13. john C. P. Goldberg & Benjamin C. Zipursky, The Moral of MacPherson, 146 U. PA. L. REV. 1733, 1752-77 (1998). (Pubitemid 128443696)
14. John C. P. Goldberg & Benjamin C. Zipursky, Unrealized Torts, 88 VA. L. REV. 1625, 1643 (2002).
15. john C. P. Goldberg, Anthony J. Sebok & Benjamin C. Zipursky, The Place of Reliance in Fraud, 48 ARIZ. L. REV. 1001, 1014 (2006).
16. John C. P. Goldberg, The Constitutional Status of Tort Law: Due Process and the Right to a Law for the Redress of Wrongs, 115 YALE L. J. 524, 608 (2005).
17. John C. P. Goldberg, Note, Community and the Common Law Judge: Reconstructing Cardozo's Theoretical Writings, 65 N. Y. U. L. REV. 1324, 1335 (1990) (footnote omitted).
18. John C. P. Goldberg & Benjamin C. Zipursky, Seeing Tort Law from the Internal Point of View: Holmes and Hart on Legal Duties, 75 FORDHAM L. REV. 1563, 1586 (2006).
19. Goldberg & Zipursky Respond to the Quandaries Facing Civil Recourse Theory, supra note 2.
20. Goldberg and Zipursky are forced to concede this. See, e.g., Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., Inc., 377 P.2d 897, 901 (Cal. 1963). As George Priest noted, "The power of the Greenman opinion is through its reference to Traynor's concurring opinion is Escola."
21. George L. Priest, The Invention of Enterprise Liability: A Critical History of the Intellectual Foundations of Modem Tort Law, 14 J. LEGAL STUD. 461, 507 n. 296 (1985).
22. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 150 P.2d 436, 440-41 (Cal. 1944). However, because not all injuries can be prevented, strict liability would also help spread the losses caused by those injuries: "The cost of an injury and the loss of time or health may be an overwhelming misfortune to the person injured, and a needless one, for the risk of injury can be insured by the manufacturer and distributed among the public as a cost of doing business." Id. at 441.
23. John C. P. Goldberg, Rethinking Injury and Proximate Cause, 40 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 1315, 1341 n. 71 (2003) ("Legislatures have occasionally relaxed the wronging requirement, as by enacting survival and wrongful death actions that permit certain beneficiaries to sue those who have wronged their decedent."). This was done for compensatory purposes.
24. See JOHN FABIAN WITT, THE ACCIDENTAL REPUBLIC: CRIPPLED WORKINGMEN, DESTITUTE WIDOWS, AND THE REMAKING OF AMERICAN LAW 53-54 (2004).
25. (citing benjamin C. Zipursky, A Theory of Punitive Damages, 84 Tex. L. Rev. 105 (2005)).
26. Samuel Issacharoff & John Fabian Witt, The Inevitability of Aggregate Settlement: An Institutional Account of American Tort Law, 57 VAND. L. REV. 1571, 1584-96 (2004).
27. see also MICHAEL D. GREEN, BENDECTIN AND BIRTH DEFECTS: THE CHALLENGES OF MASS TOXIC SUBSTANCES LITIGATION 255 (1996) ("It is no secret to those even modestly familiar with the personal injury system that the ideal of individualized adjudication, with respect for and attention to the details of the claim, faithful attomeyagents reflecting the interests and desires of the clients, and arbiters listening carefully and respectfully to the claims and stories of the parties is a myth.").
28. U. S. GOV'T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-11-819, ASBESTOS INJURY COMPENSATION: THE ROLE AND ADMINISTRATION OF ASBESTOS TRUSTS 16(2011), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/585380.pdf ("Since the establishment of the first trust in 1988 through 2010, available data indicate that asbestos trusts have paid about 3.3 million claims valued at about $17.5 billion. "). I thank Mike Rustad for this point.
29. ARPC, CASE STUDY: MANAGEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF MASS TORT TRUSTS, available at http://www.arpc.com/case-study/management-operations-mass-tort-trusts.
30. Georgene M. Vairo, The Daikon Shield Claimants Trust: Paradigm Lost (or Found) ?, 61 FORDHAM L. REV. 617, 617 (1992).
31. see Tom Baker, Liability Insurance, Moral Luck, and Auto Accidents, 9 THEORETICAL INQUIRIES L. 165 (2007);
32. Nora Freeman Engstrom, An Alternative Explanation for No-Fault's "Demise", 61 DEPAUL L. REV. 303 (2012);
33. Jennifer B. Wriggins, Automobile Injuries as Injuries with Remedies: Driving, Insurance, Torts, and Changing the "Choice Architecture" of Auto Insurance Pricing, 44 LOY. L. A. L. REV. 69 (2010).
34. Thomas H. Cohen, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005, BUREAU OF JUST. STAT. BULL. (U. S. Dep't of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics), November 2009, at fig.1, available at http://bjs.ojp. usdoj.gov/content/pub/ pdf7tbjtsc05.pdf.
35. KENNETH S. ABRAHAM, THE LIABILITY CENTURY: INSURANCE AND TORT LAW FROM THE PROGRESSIVE ERA TO 9/11, at 70-71 (2008).
36. MARC A. FRANKLIN, ROBERT L. RABIN & MICHAEL D. GREEN, TORT LAW AND ALTERNATIVES 801 (9th ed. 2011).
37. See, e.g., Jonathan Simon, Driving Govemmentality: Automobile Accidents, Insurance, and the Challenge to Social Order in the Inter-War Years, 1919 to 1941, 4 CONN. INS. L. J. 521, 540 (1998) ("The rapid growth of motoring coupled with unimproved roads and a population with no historical experience driving such machines, combined to generate a hellish carnage that is difficult to appreciate in our era of air bags, engineered highways, and automobile conscious people.").
38. Report by tHE COMMITTEE TO STUDY COMPENSATION FOR AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS TO THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 17 (1932) [hereinafter Columbia Plan]
39. See, e.g., ROBERT E. KEETON & JEFFREY O'CONNELL, BASIC PROTECTION FOR THE TRAFFIC VICTIM: A BLUEPRINT FOR REFORMING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 251 (1965).
40. See, e.g., JEFFREY E. THOMAS, NEW APPLEMAN ON INSURANCE LAW LIBRARY EDITION § 61. 01 (Lexis 2011).
41. Wheeler v. O'Connell, 9 N. E.2d 544, 546 (Mass. 1937).
42. COLUMBIA PLAN, supra note 80, at 203.
43. See JOSEPH A. Page, Roscoe Pound, Melvin Belli, and the Personal-Injury Bar: The Tale of an Odd Coupling, 26 T. M. COOLEY L. REV. 637, 668 (2009).
44. See, e.g., Paul J. Barringer, David M. Studdert, Allen B. Kachalia & Michelle M. Mello, Administrative Compensation of Medical Injuries: A Hardy Perennial Blooms Again, 33 J. HEALTH POL. POL'Y & L. 725, 732 (2008).
45. H. LAURENCE ROSS, SETTLED out OF COURT: THE SOCIAL PROCESS OF INSURANCE CLAIMS ADJUSTMENTS (1970).
46. ALFRED F. CONARD, JAMES N. MORGAN, ROBERT W. PRATT, JR., CHARLES E. VOLTZ & ROBERT L. BOMBAUGH, AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT COSTS AND PAYMENTS: STUDIES IN THE ECONOMICS OF INJURY REPARATION (1964).
47. see also JOHN FABIAN WITT, PATRIOTS AND COSMOPOLITANS: HIDDEN HISTORIES OF AMERICAN LAW 211-278 (2007);
48. John Fabian Witt, Bureaucratic Legalism, American Style: Private Bureaucratic Legalism and the Governance of the Tort System, 56 DEPAUL L. REV. 261, 263-71 (2007).
49. See Fleming James, Jr., Inroads on Old Tort Concepts, 14 NACCA L. J. 226 (1954);
50. Fleming James, Jr., Inroads on Old Tort Concepts, Part II, 15 NACCA L. J. 281 (1955).
51. Am. Ass'n for Justice, http://www.justice.org.
52. (citing Comment, Settlement of Personal Injury Cases in the Chicago Area, 47 NW. U. L. REV. 895, 904-05 & n. 48 (1953)).
53. Nora Freeman Engstrom, Run-of-the-Mill Justice, 22 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 1485, 1486 (2009).
54. Nora Freeman Engstrom, Sunlight and Settlement Mills, 86 N. Y. U. L. REV. 805, 807 (2011).
55. 433 U. S. 350 (1977).
56. Nora Freeman Engstrom, Legal Access and Attorney Advertising, 19 Am. U. J. GENDER SOC. POL'y & L. 1083, 1083 (2011).
57. See also Stephen Daniels & Joanne Martin, Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Dealing with the Possible But Not Certain, 60 DEPAUL L. REV. 337, 356 (2011).
58. Mark J. Browne & Joan T. Schmit, Patterns in Personal Automobile Third-Party Bodily Injury Litigation: 1977-1997 (Sept. 2, 2004) (unpublished manuscript), http://ssm.com/abstract=588481. In the second study, during 1992-2001, the National Center for State Courts reports that automobile tort filings declined 14% in the seventeen states (with 53% of the U. S. population) covered by available data.
59. (citing NAT'L CTR. FOR STATE COURTS, EXAMINING THE WORK OF STATE COURTS, 2002: A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE FROM THE COURT STATISTICS PROJECT 26 (2002)).
60. During the same period, the number of traffic accidents with injuries and the number of overall traffic accidents both increased. Id. at 1519-20 (citing NAT'L CTR. FOR STATISTICS & ANALYSIS, TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTS 2005, at 1).
61. (citing DEBORAH R. HENSLER et al., TRENDS IN TORT LITIGATION 8-9, 32 (1987)). In many ways, the foregoing critique is an elaboration of Mike Rustad's point that civil recourse does not sufficiently account for major players in the tort system, such as insurers and plaintiffs' lawyers.
62. See Michael L. Rustad, Torts as Public Wrongs, 38 PEPP. L. REV. 433, 480 (2011).
63. Jason M. Solomon, What is Civil Justice?, 44 LOY. L. A. L. REV. 317, 331 (2010).
64. Strauss v. Belle Realty Co., 482 N. E.2d 34, 36 (N. Y. 1985). In the breach analysis, formally governed by the instrumentalist-inspired objective standard, "utility" is often considered.
65. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 291 cmt. d (1965). Proximate cause often involves courts' use of "public policy" and "practical politics" from Judge Andrews's dissent in Palsgraf.
66. Palsgraf v. Long Island R. R. Co., 162 N. E. 99, 103 (N. Y. 1928) (Andrews, J., dissenting). Finally, damages may be capped for instrumentalist efficiency reasons.
67. See, e.g., Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108 (b) (LexisNexis 2006) (passing a $350, 000 cap on noneconomic damages in personal injury actions to ease perceived pressure on liability insurers);
68. see Alan Calnan, The Distorted Reality of Civil Recourse Theory, 60 CLEV. ST. L. REV. 159, 183-92 (2012);
69. See, e.g., Tom Baker, Insurance in Sociolegal Research, 6 ANN. REV. L. & SOC. SCI. 433 (2010).
70. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL HARM § 14 cmt. d. (2010) ("[I]n most highway-accident cases, findings of negligence depend on ascertaining which party has violated the relevant provisions of the state's motor-vehicle code.") I thank Nora Engstrom and Kyle Graham for this point.