This past spring, the DePaul Law Review published papers from the 28th Annual Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy. The theme of the symposium was "Litigating the Public Good: Punishing Serious Corporate Misconduct." There are a few pieces that may be of interest to LHB readers:
"'A Force Created': The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Politics of Corporate Immunity," by Myriam Gilles (Cardozo School of Law). An excerpt from the Introduction (footnotes omitted):
Upon its founding in 1912, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was conceived as a “force created” to exert “a beneficent influence upon our national life” by integrating the views of the business community into governmental policies and regulations. That a force was created is beyond question. Beneficence is a separate issue.
This is the story of how the Chamber transformed from that early vision of a public-minded, apolitical organization intent on providing “enlightened economic policymaking advice . . . for the benefit of the nation” into its current form—a partisan enterprise focused on securing, among other things, broad and lasting corporate immunity from suit.
"Crime and Tort: Reflections on Legal Categories," by Alexandra D. Lahav (Cornell Law School). An excerpt from the Introduction:
This Essay investigates how a particular category of torts—suits for injuries caused by dangerous products—has been seen alternatively as based in contact or criminal law—in addition to, or sometimes instead of, an independent doctrine sounding in tort that arises from a duty not to harm others. This category problem has plagued courts even though, since the 1850s, courts have held that manufacturers had a duty enforceable by private suit not to sell harmful products. The Essay tells the story of regulation of one very dangerous product, milk, in the late nineteenth century as a window into the meaning of how conduct is categorized—the significance of putting torts at the periphery rather than the center. The meanings of legal categories map on to conceptions about how society should be governed that continue to be at the heart of many doctrinal and policy debates today. These include: how much should private ordering govern? To what extent should harm lie where it falls, especially when it comes to untested or untried products, and in what cases should manufacturers be held responsible for harm? What kind of fault is in play in the sale and distribution of harmful products and is this something to be policed by purely public entities or by the individuals harmed or both? Should there be an intent requirement, or is a showing of causation sufficient? What institutions—criminal, public health, or civil justice—are best situated to provide redress in cases where people are harmed?
-- Karen Tani
