Monthly Archives: March, 2018

Alan Calnan, ‘Torts As Systems’

Abstract This article offers a science-based answer to an old philosophical question, ‘What is the essential nature of torts?’ Building on the ‘process theory’ of torts and my own general theory of ‘jurisilience’, the proposed answer emerges from a neglected natural fact: torts is a complex system. Like all such systems, torts is both shaped […]

Bradley Wendel, ‘Economic Rationality and Ethical Values in Design-Defect Analysis: The Trolley Problem and Autonomous Vehicles’

Abstract The trolley problem is a well-known thought experiment in moral philosophy, used to explore issues such as rights, deontological reasons, and intention and the doctrine of double effect. Recently it has featured prominently in popular discussions of decision making by autonomous vehicle systems. For example, a Mercedes-Benz executive stated that, if faced with the […]

Charlie Webb, ‘Three Concepts of Rights, Two of Property’

Abstract Sometimes rights are taken to describe concrete, bottom-line entitlements, sometimes a kind of ground of such entitlements. I suggest that this difference reflects not so much disagreement or uncertainty as to the nature of rights as different applications and senses of the term ‘right’, each expressing a different idea or concept. Much work on […]

Tracy Pearl, ‘Compensation at the Crossroads: Autonomous Vehicles and Alternative Victim Compensation Schemes’

Abstract Fully autonomous vehicles will become available to consumers within the next five to seven years. Experts predict that these vehicles will be drastically safer than their human-driven counterparts and will save thousands of lives each year in the United States alone. However, crashes will still occur, and when they do, they will raise unique […]

Emily Sherwin, ‘Fiduciary Law and Equity: Enforcing Loyalty’

Abstract In this essay, I suggest that the combination of formal and remedial techniques that equity courts traditionally have applied to the problem of trustee loyalty is strongly oriented to deterrence. One consequence is that when loyalty and prudence conflict, primacy for loyalty is built into the structure of fiduciary law. It is open to […]

Michael Oswalt, ‘The Content of Coercion’

Abstract This article is about a new approach to one of the law’s most basic questions: what is coercion? Under its traditional framing, coercion is about transactions. One person makes an offer to another person, who, under the circumstances, has no realistic option but to say ‘yes’. But that conception has not helped courts articulate […]

Roy Anderson, ‘A Look Back at the Future of UCC Damages Remedies’

Abstract Article Two of the Uniform Commercial Code stands today as a living testament to Karl Llewellyn and the many other brilliant and dedicated lawyers from well over a half century ago who participated actively in its drafting. Of the Code’s several articles, Article Two is particularly noteworthy because it alone has survived to the […]

Gregory Crespi, ‘Presenting a Critical Perspective on “Economic Efficiency” in Law and Economics Courses’

Abstract ‘Law and Economics’ courses are sometimes criticized for inadequately explaining the normative criterion of ‘economic efficiency’ and then applying this criterion throughout the course in a superficial and biased manner that pejoratively labels most governmental market interventions and wealth redistribution measures as inefficient. These criticisms have merit, and in this article I point out […]

Ezra Friedman, ‘Sharing Responsibility Instead of Allocating Blame: Reforming Torts and Reducing Accidents’

Abstract Imagine a pedestrian and driver both approaching a crosswalk. Both parties can take actions to prevent an accident, and traditional economic analysis of tort law recognizes the importance of making sure that both parties have an incentive to do so. But, traditional negligence rules can provide efficient incentives to both parties only under unrealistically […]

Jeffrey Lipshaw, ‘Conversation, Convention, or Conversion? A Response to Kar and Radin’

Abstract This is a response to ‘Pseudo-Contract and Shared Meaning Analysis’ by Professors Robin Bradley Kar and Margaret Radin. Their article is a thoughtful and ambitious attempt to find a principled basis in the theory of contract formation for distinguishing what they see as the legitimate portion of the transaction – the ‘actual agreement’ which […]