Podcasts about tort law

A comprehensive exploration of tort law, focusing on negligence, intent, and strict liability. The discussion delves into the nuances of torts, including the importance of understanding intent in torts versus criminal law, the role of negligence in tort law, and the concept of strict liability. Key cases and examples are used to illustrate these principles, providing valuable insights for law students and professionals.In the intricate world of law, torts stand as a fundamental pillar, shaping the way we understand accountability and justice. This deep dive into tort law unravels the complexities of negligence, intent, and strict liability, offering insights crucial for law students and professionals alike.The Essence of Torts: Torts are not just about memorizing rules; they are about understanding the underlying principles of accountability. As highlighted in the discussion, negligence forms a significant portion of tort law, with 50% of torts questions focusing on this area. Mastering negligence involves understanding duty, breach, causation, and damages, with a keen eye on the nuances of duty and causation.Intent and Its Complexities: Intent in torts differs significantly from criminal law. The discussion emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between specific and general intent, especially in cases like battery and assault. The Villa v. Darul case serves as a perfect illustration of how intent is applied in torts, focusing on the intent for contact rather than the resulting injury.Strict Liability and Its Reach: Strict liability shifts the focus from the defendant's mindset to the nature of the activity or product. Whether it's abnormally dangerous activities or product liability, the principle remains the same: accountability without fault. The discussion also touches on the intriguing overlap of tort concepts, such as applying battery principles to environmental pollution cases.At its core, tort law is about achieving corrective justice, ensuring that those responsible for harm bear the cost. As we navigate the complexities of torts, we must consider how these principles apply to both physical and emotional vulnerabilities, challenging us to think about the future evolution of tort law.Negligence Focus: Negligence constitutes 50% of torts questions, emphasizing the importance of understanding duty, breach, causation, and damages.Intent in Torts vs. Criminal Law: Intent in torts focuses on the contact rather than the resulting injury, differing significantly from criminal law.Transferred Intent: This principle applies to core torts like battery and assault, allowing intent to transfer between victims or torts.Eggshell Plaintiff Rule: Ensures full compensation for physical harm, accounting for the plaintiff's unique vulnerabilities.Comparative Fault Systems: These systems vary by jurisdiction, affecting how damages are calculated based on the plaintiff's fault.Product Liability: Involves understanding manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn, crucial for tort law.TakeawaysTorts are about accountability and corrective justice.Negligence is 50% of torts questions, focusing on duty, breach, causation, and damages.Intent in torts differs from criminal law, focusing on contact rather than injury.Strict liability focuses on the nature of the activity, not the defendant's mindset.Villa v. Darul illustrates intent in torts, focusing on contact.Transferred intent applies to core torts like battery and assault.The eggshell plaintiff rule ensures full compensation for physical harm.Comparative fault and contributory negligence systems vary by jurisdiction.Product liability involves manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn.Tort law may need to evolve to address emotional vulnerabilities.tort law, negligence, intent, strict liability, Villa v. Darul, MBE, accountability, corrective justice

In this episode, we dive into the world of personal injury law with David B. Lever, the founder and senior partner of Lever & Ecker, PLLC. Since 1990, David has dedicated his career to fighting for accident victims, never defending insurance companies or corporate defendants. Known for his integrity and relentless advocacy, he's earned the respect of lawyers and judges alike – becoming a trusted and influential figure in New York's legal community… David started his own firm at just 30 years old, driven by a desire to help people rebuild their lives. Decades later, that passion hasn't faded. For David, every case is about restoring dignity and making a real difference for those who've been hurt through no fault of their own. Join the conversation now to discover: How attorneys become experts in specific areas of law.  Why David chose to represent victims of personal injury. The ways in which personal injury compensation has evolved over the years. Modern accident patterns to watch out for. You can learn more about David and his work here!

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of tort law, focusing on the various types of damages, including compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages. It delves into the complexities of calculating damages, the role of vicarious liability, and the distinctions between wrongful death and survival actions. The discussion also covers important defenses such as mitigation of damages and the implications of statutes of limitations and repose. Overall, it serves as a valuable resource for understanding tort law and preparing for related exams.Imagine you're preparing for a torts exam, and one concept stands out as the linchpin of it all: damages. Whether it's negligence or intentional torts, the remedy is crucial. This post explores the intricacies of tort law, focusing on damages and vicarious liability.Compensatory Damages: Compensatory damages aim to address the actual loss or injury. They are divided into economic damages, like medical bills and lost wages, and non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering. Understanding the distinction between lost earnings and loss of earning capacity is vital, as the former looks backward while the latter gazes into the future.Punitive and Nominal Damages: Punitive damages serve to punish and deter, requiring proof of an "evil mind." Nominal damages, though symbolic, confirm a legal right was violated, potentially unlocking significant attorney's fees.Vicarious Liability: Vicarious liability holds one party responsible for another's actions due to their relationship. The doctrine of respondeat superior is key, determining if an employer is liable for an employee's torts. The distinction between a frolic and a detour is crucial in assessing liability.Advanced Claims and Defenses: The post delves into wrongful death and survival actions, highlighting the importance of distinguishing between them. It also covers the economic loss rule, maintaining the boundary between tort and contract law, and the statutes of limitations and repose.Tort law is complex, with damages and vicarious liability at its core. Understanding these concepts is essential for anyone studying or practicing law. As the legal landscape evolves, staying informed is crucial. Subscribe now for more insights into the world of law.TakeawaysTort law revolves around remedies, primarily damages.Compensatory damages aim to make the plaintiff whole.Punitive damages serve to punish the defendant and deter future misconduct.Nominal damages are awarded to acknowledge a legal wrong without substantial harm.The collateral source rule prevents defendants from benefiting from the plaintiff's insurance.Future damages must be reasonably certain to occur to be recoverable.Non-economic damages are subjective and often capped by state laws.Vicarious liability holds employers responsible for employees' actions within the scope of employment.Loss of consortium claims are derivative and depend on the main injury claim's success.Statutes of limitations and repose set strict deadlines for filing lawsuits.tort law, negligence, damages, vicarious liability, compensatory damages, punitive damages, wrongful death, survival actions, legal remedies, law exam preparation

This conversation delves into the complexities of intentional torts, focusing on defamation, privacy torts, and economic torts. The discussion highlights essential elements, defenses, and constitutional considerations that law students must grasp for exams. Key topics include the nuances of defamation per se, the defenses available to defendants, the impact of the First Amendment on defamation claims, and the evolving landscape of privacy rights in the digital age. The conversation also touches on intentional business torts, emphasizing the importance of understanding the legal frameworks surrounding economic relationships.In the intricate world of tort law, understanding the nuances of defamation, privacy, and business torts is crucial for law students and professionals alike. This deep dive explores the essential elements and defenses of these torts, providing a comprehensive framework for tackling exam hypotheticals and real-world legal challenges.Defamation: Defamation is a tort that involves harming someone's reputation through false statements. Key distinctions include defamation per se, where damages are presumed, and the necessity of proving actual harm. The defenses of truth and opinion play a significant role, with the U. S. and Commonwealth approaches offering nuanced differences.Privacy Torts: Intrusion upon seclusion, a critical privacy tort, requires intentional or reckless invasion of private affairs, causing highly offensive distress. Recent Canadian cases highlight limitations in holding companies liable for third-party data breaches, emphasizing the need for tangible loss through other legal avenues.Business Torts: Intentional interference with contractual relations and negligent misrepresentation are vital for protecting economic interests. Understanding the elements of these torts, including the independently wrongful act requirement, is essential for distinguishing valid claims from legitimate competition.Mastering the definitions, elements, and constitutional frameworks of these torts is paramount for legal success. As technology evolves, the intersection of identity, performance, and public discourse presents new challenges, making it imperative for future lawyers to navigate these complexities with precision.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest legal insights and developments.TakeawaysIntentional torts are crucial for law students to understand.Defamation involves harming someone's reputation through false statements.Defamation per se simplifies proving damages in certain cases.Truth serves as an absolute defense against defamation claims.Opinions are generally protected from defamation unless they imply false facts.Absolute privilege allows certain statements to be immune from defamation liability.Public figures must prove actual malice to win defamation cases.Intrusion upon seclusion is increasingly relevant in the digital age.The right of publicity encompasses various interests and legal challenges.Intentional interference protects economic relationships from wrongful disruption.torts, defamation, privacy, intentional torts, economic torts, law students, constitutional law, business torts, reputation, legal defenses

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of strict liability in tort law, detailing its principles, foundations, and implications. The discussion covers the transition from negligence to strict liability, the categories of strict liability including abnormally dangerous activities, animal liability, and product liability. It also explores defenses against strict liability claims and the underlying policy and economic considerations that shape the application of strict liability in modern law. The conversation concludes with strategies for law students preparing for torts exams, emphasizing the importance of understanding the nuances and policy implications of strict liability.Welcome to our deep dive into the doctrine of strict liability, a pivotal concept in tort law that shifts the focus from negligence to liability without fault. This exploration is essential for anyone preparing for a torts exam or seeking to understand the nuances of liability in legal contexts.The Essence of Strict Liability: Strict liability imposes responsibility on defendants even when they have exercised extraordinary care and had no intent to cause harm. This legal mechanism is designed to allocate loss based on the nature of the activity rather than the quality of conduct. In essence, it removes the breach of duty standard typical in negligence cases.Key Elements and Historical Foundations: To establish a claim under strict liability, a plaintiff must prove three elements: the defendant engaged in the relevant activity, the activity caused harm, and the resulting harm occurred. This doctrine has deep roots in English common law, notably the landmark 1868 case, Rylands v. Fletcher, which set the stage for modern strict liability frameworks.Modern Applications and Categories: Strict liability today is applied in specific contexts, including certain categories of animals, abnormally dangerous activities, and product liability for defective products. Each category has its nuances, such as the classification of wild versus domestic animals and the factors determining abnormally dangerous activities.Economic and Policy Considerations: The economic implications of strict liability are profound, as it forces actors to internalize the full social cost of their activities. This creates incentives not only to exercise care but also to reconsider the activity level itself. However, critics argue that strict liability can lead to over-deterrence and stifle innovation.Understanding strict liability requires a grasp of its historical roots, modern applications, and the economic and policy considerations that shape its implementation. As you prepare for your torts exam, focus on memorizing the foundational elements, understanding the policy rationale, and mastering the nuances that distinguish strict liability from negligence.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest insights in tort law and beyond.TakeawaysStrict liability is a fundamental pivot in tort law.It imposes liability even when the defendant acted with extraordinary care.The court decides if the activity justifies moving away from fault-based systems.Strict liability is reserved for activities with serious residual risks.Wild animals are presumed dangerous under strict liability.Product liability holds sellers liable for defective products.Assumption of risk is a key defense in strict liability cases.Strict liability internalizes the full social cost of activities.The modern trend moves away from pure strict liability.Understanding the nuances of strict liability is crucial for torts exams.strict liability, tort law, negligence, abnormally dangerous activities, product liability, animal liability, legal principles, torts exam, risk utility test, economic analysis

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of the tort of negligence, focusing on its four essential pillars: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. The discussion delves into the nuances of each pillar, including the standards of care, the importance of foreseeability, and the various doctrines that assist in proving negligence. Additionally, it covers defenses against liability, such as contributory and comparative negligence, and the concept of assumption of risk. The conversation concludes with reflections on the balance between legal standards and human judgment in achieving justice.In the realm of civil law, negligence stands as a cornerstone, where carelessness meets legal accountability. Whether you're preparing for a torts exam or simply curious about legal frameworks, understanding the four pillars of negligence—duty, breach, causation, and damages—is essential.Duty: The Foundation of Responsibility The first pillar, duty, asks whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal obligation. This duty is often broad, requiring individuals to act as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances. However, the standard can shift dramatically based on specific roles or relationships, such as those of professionals or landowners.Breach: Falling Short of Standards Once duty is established, the next question is whether the defendant breached that duty. This involves comparing the defendant's actions to those of a hypothetical "reasonably prudent person." The breach is determined by whether the defendant's conduct fell below this standard, often using tools like the Hand Formula to assess reasonableness.Causation: Linking Actions to Harm Causation connects the defendant's breach to the plaintiff's injury and is divided into two parts: actual cause and proximate cause. Actual cause, or "but-for" causation, asks if the injury would have occurred without the defendant's actions. Proximate cause limits liability to foreseeable consequences, ensuring the harm was a direct result of the breach.Damages: Quantifying Harm Finally, for a negligence claim to succeed, the plaintiff must have suffered legally recognized damages. These can be economic, such as medical expenses and lost wages, or non-economic, like pain and suffering. In some cases, punitive damages may be awarded to punish particularly egregious conduct.The four pillars of negligence provide a structured approach to understanding and analyzing legal accountability. By methodically examining duty, breach, causation, and damages, one can navigate even the most complex legal scenarios. As you delve deeper into the intricacies of negligence law, remember that these pillars are not just legal concepts but tools for achieving justice and accountability.Subscribe Now: Stay informed and deepen your understanding of legal principles by subscribing to our blog for more insights and analyses.TakeawaysNegligence is foundational in civil law.The four pillars of negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages.Duty of care establishes legal obligations to prevent harm.Breach of duty is measured against the standard of a reasonably prudent person.Causation includes both actual and proximate cause.Damages must be legally recognized losses for a claim to succeed.Res ipsa loquitur allows for inferring negligence without direct evidence.Negligence per se simplifies proving breach when a statute is violated.Comparative negligence reduces damages based on the plaintiff's fault.Assumption of risk can bar recovery if the plaintiff knowingly accepted the risk.negligence, tort law, duty of care, breach of duty, causation, damages, res ipsa loquitur, negligence per se, defenses, assumption of risk

This conversation delves into the complexities of intentional torts, focusing on the mental state required for liability, the distinctions between various property torts, and the nuances of defenses such as consent and necessity. It also explores the implications of vicarious liability, emphasizing the importance of understanding these concepts for legal exams and practical applications in tort law.In the realm of intentional torts, understanding the nuances of mental state, substantial certainty, and transferred intent is crucial for both law students and practitioners. These concepts form the backbone of determining liability and defenses in cases involving intentional acts.Imagine a scenario where a child pulls a chair from under another, causing them to fall. The child's intent wasn't to harm, but the act itself led to injury. This classic example from Garrett v. Daley illustrates the importance of understanding intent in tort law. Intentional torts hinge on the actor's mental state and the certainty of the outcome, rather than malice or ill will.Mental State and Substantial Certainty: Intentional torts require a specific mental state. The focus is on the intention to perform the act that causes harm, not necessarily the intention to cause the specific harm itself. For instance, if someone throws a rock into a dense crowd, they may not aim at anyone specific, but the knowledge that harm is almost certain transforms the act into an intentional tort. This doctrine of substantial certainty acts as a substitute for proving specific intent.Transferred Intent: Transferred intent is a fascinating legal fiction that ensures accountability. It applies when a defendant intends to commit a tort against one person but inadvertently harms another. For example, if A aims a punch at B, but B ducks and A hits C, the intent transfers to the actual contact with C. This doctrine ensures that defendants cannot escape liability due to a misdirected action.Understanding these concepts is vital for navigating the complexities of intentional torts. They highlight the importance of the actor's knowledge and the consequences of their actions, ensuring that justice is served even when the harm caused wasn't the original intent. As you delve deeper into tort law, remember that these principles are not just legal technicalities but essential tools for achieving fair outcomes in the courtroom.Subscribe now to stay updated on more insights into tort law and other legal concepts.TakeawaysIntentional torts hinge on culpability, not just malice.Liability attaches if the defendant intended the act, not the harm.The focus flips from desire to knowledge of consequences in torts.Transferred intent serves a crucial purpose in tort law.Consent is a complete defense in intentional torts.Public necessity grants complete privilege from liability.Private necessity allows for tortious acts but requires compensation for damages.Battery protects bodily integrity and autonomy.Assault protects against the apprehension of imminent contact.Vicarious liability shifts the focus from individual culpability to employer responsibility.intentional torts, mental state, liability, trespass, conversion, assault, battery, emotional distress, defenses, vicarious liability

Send us a textWhat happens when debate dies and violence takes its place? In this episode of Beneath the Law, Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele examine the shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk in Utah, unpacking its chilling implications for free speech, civil discourse, and the rule of law. They examine the reaction to Kirk's death, from public celebrations to university professors facing consequences for online comments and explore everything from potential civil liability to the dangers of ad hominem attacks in public dialogue. Drawing parallels to the attempted Trump assassination and historic figures like Martin Luther King Jr., they raise urgent questions about whether we're entering a new era where disagreeing isn't just controversial, it's life-threatening.  Listen For:47 The Shocking Celebration of Death Online2:47 The Death of Debate and Rise of Violence13:09 Can the University Be Sued? Tort Law and the Shooting25:22 Free Speech or Firing Offense? The Professor Controversy32:56 Why Even the Guilty Deserve a LawyerLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one click Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Does a venue owe you a duty of care if you've had too much to drink? In Cole v South Tweed Rugby League Football Club, the High Court of Australia considered whether a hotel owed a duty of care to a visibly intoxicated patron. Rosellie Cole had been drinking at the Rugby Club and became severely intoxicated. Staff offered her a lift home, which she declined. Later, after leaving the premises, she was struck by a car while walking along the highway. Cole sued the club for negligence, arguing that it should not have served her so much alcohol and should have taken steps to prevent her from leaving while drunk. The trial court initially found in her favour, awarding damages, but this was overturned on appeal. The High Court held that while licensed venues must take reasonable steps to avoid harm, adults also bear personal responsibility. The majority ruled the club was not liable, as it had taken reasonable steps, including offering her a lift home.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Kristin Renfro, a California condemnation attorney, joins the show to discuss inverse condemnation and its intersection with tort law. Kristen describes her experience litigating a case involving a catastrophic landslide. She details how inverse condemnation differs from tort law in that it requires no fault—only that a public project caused damage. Kristen explains the legal and scientific challenges of proving causation, including the need for expert geological and geotechnical testimony, and outlines the strategic decisions made during the trial. The conversation also touches on broader implications for property owners, utilities, and constitutional rights, especially in light of California's progressive stance on public utility liability.  The episode concludes with Renfro's review of a recent trip to see Dead & Company at the Sphere in Las Vegas.   Links:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/kditlev/

Session 1: Foundations of Tort Law Chapter 1: Introduction to Tort Law Tort law is a branch of civil law that addresses harm or injury caused by one party to another. Its primary goal is to provide remedies for the injured party and deter others from committing similar offenses. Key elements of tort law include duty, breach, causation, and damages. The chapter also explores the distinctions between intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability. Chapter 2: Intentional Torts Intentional torts involve deliberate actions that cause harm to another. Common examples include: Assault and Battery: Physical or verbal actions causing apprehension or harm. False Imprisonment: Restricting someone's movement without lawful justification. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Outrageous conduct causing severe emotional harm. Trespass to Land: Unauthorized entry onto another's property. Conversion: Interfering with someone's personal property. Each intentional tort requires proving intent, causation, and damages. Chapter 3: Negligence Negligence occurs when an individual fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another. The five key elements include: Duty of Care: The obligation to act reasonably to prevent harm. Breach of Duty: Failing to meet the standard of care. Causation: Connecting the breach to the harm (actual and proximate causation). Damages: Proving actual harm or injury. Defenses: Contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk. Session 2: Liability and Specialized Areas Chapter 4: Strict Liability Strict liability imposes responsibility without fault. Key areas include: Abnormally Dangerous Activities: High-risk activities like blasting or hazardous material transport. Product Liability: Holding manufacturers accountable for defective products. Animal Liability: Owners of wild animals or dangerous domestic animals are held strictly liable for harm caused. Chapter 5: Defamation Defamation protects reputation and involves false statements causing harm. Types include: Libel: Written or published defamatory statements. Slander: Spoken defamatory statements. Elements include false statements, publication, harm, and fault. Public figures must prove actual malice, while private individuals prove negligence. Defenses include truth, privilege, and consent. Chapter 6: Product Liability This chapter examines legal claims related to defective products. The three main types of defects are: Manufacturing Defects: Flaws during production. Design Defects: Unsafe product designs. Failure to Warn: Inadequate safety warnings. Legal theories include negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty. Session 3: Expanding Horizons in Tort Law Chapter 7: Nuisance Nuisance law addresses unreasonable interferences with property rights. Two primary types are: Private Nuisance: Interference with individual property use. Public Nuisance: Actions affecting the community's health, safety, or morals. Remedies include damages, injunctions, and abatement. Chapter 8: Economic Torts Economic torts focus on financial harm rather than physical or property damage. Key examples are: Interference with Contractual Relations: Intentionally causing a breach of contract. Fraud: Deceptive practices causing financial loss. Misrepresentation: Providing false information that leads to harm. Chapter 9: Defenses to Tort Claims Defenses mitigate or eliminate liability in tort claims. Common defenses include: Consent: The plaintiff agreed to the defendant's conduct. Self-Defense: Protecting oneself with reasonable force. Necessity: Actions taken to prevent greater harm. Statutory Privileges: Immunities provided by law. Chapter 10: Emerging Issues in Tort Law This chapter explores contemporary developments in tort law, including: Technological Advances: Liability for AI, autonomous vehicles, and data breaches. Environmental Torts: Addressing climate change and pollution. Public Health Crises: Legal implications of pandemics a

This legal decision explains tort law, focusing on nuisance, economic torts, and defenses to tort claims. It details the different types of nuisance (public and private), their remedies (damages, injunctions, abatement), and how nuisance law is adapting to modern issues like climate change and digital pollution. The text also covers various economic torts such as interference with contracts, fraud, and misrepresentation, and how these torts are evolving in the digital age. Finally, it discusses common and emerging defenses to tort claims, including consent, self-defense, necessity, and statutory privileges, and explores emerging issues in tort law related to technological advances, environmental torts, and public health crises.

Session 3: Expanding Horizons in Tort Law Chapter 7: Nuisance Nuisance law addresses unreasonable interferences with property rights. Two primary types are: Private Nuisance: Interference with individual property use. Public Nuisance: Actions affecting the community's health, safety, or morals. Remedies include damages, injunctions, and abatement. Chapter 8: Economic Torts Economic torts focus on financial harm rather than physical or property damage. Key examples are: Interference with Contractual Relations: Intentionally causing a breach of contract. Fraud: Deceptive practices causing financial loss. Misrepresentation: Providing false information that leads to harm. Chapter 9: Defenses to Tort Claims Defenses mitigate or eliminate liability in tort claims. Common defenses include: Consent: The plaintiff agreed to the defendant's conduct. Self-Defense: Protecting oneself with reasonable force. Necessity: Actions taken to prevent greater harm. Statutory Privileges: Immunities provided by law. Chapter 10: Emerging Issues in Tort Law This chapter explores contemporary developments in tort law, including: Technological Advances: Liability for AI, autonomous vehicles, and data breaches. Environmental Torts: Addressing climate change and pollution. Public Health Crises: Legal implications of pandemics and vaccine distribution.

This legal discussion covers three core areas of tort law: strict liability, defamation, and product liability. Strict liability focuses on holding individuals or entities responsible for harm caused by inherently dangerous activities or defective products, regardless of intent or negligence. Defamation examines legal protections against false statements that harm reputation, distinguishing between libel and slander and considering the role of free speech. Finally, product liability details the legal frameworks for holding manufacturers and sellers accountable for injuries caused by defective products, exploring different types of defects and legal theories of liability.

Tort Law - Strict Liability, Defamation, and Product Liability Chapter 4: Strict Liability Strict liability assigns responsibility for damages caused by certain activities or conditions, regardless of intent or care. It applies to abnormally dangerous activities, animal liability, and product liability. This policy promotes safety and ensures victim compensation by shifting the burden of risk to those best able to control or insure against it. Chapter 5: Defamation Defamation protects reputations from false and harmful statements, balancing free speech and personal rights. It encompasses libel (written) and slander (spoken) and requires proof of a false statement, publication, harm, and fault. Defenses include truth, privilege, consent, and opinion. Chapter 6: Product Liability Product liability addresses harm from defective or dangerous products. Defects can be manufacturing flaws, design flaws, or failures to warn. Liability theories include negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty. Overall Summary Tort law addresses various harms through different mechanisms, aiming to allocate costs to those who create or control risks while providing redress to victims. Strict liability covers inherently dangerous activities, defamation protects reputations, and product liability ensures consumer safety. As technology advances, these laws must adapt to new challenges.

Session 1: Foundations of Tort Law Chapter 1: Introduction to Tort Law Tort law is a branch of civil law that addresses harm or injury caused by one party to another. Its primary goal is to provide remedies for the injured party and deter others from committing similar offenses. Key elements of tort law include duty, breach, causation, and damages. The chapter also explores the distinctions between intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability. Chapter 2: Intentional Torts Intentional torts involve deliberate actions that cause harm to another. Common examples include: ● Assault and Battery: Physical or verbal actions causing apprehension or harm. ● False Imprisonment: Restricting someone's movement without lawful justification. ● Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Outrageous conduct causing severe emotional harm. ● Trespass to Land: Unauthorized entry onto another's property. ● Conversion: Interfering with someone's personal property. Each intentional tort requires proving intent, causation, and damages. Chapter 3: Negligence Negligence occurs when an individual fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another. The five key elements include: 1. Duty of Care: The obligation to act reasonably to prevent harm. 2. Breach of Duty: Failing to meet the standard of care. 3. Causation: Connecting the breach to the harm (actual and proximate causation). 4. Damages: Proving actual harm or injury. 5. Defenses: Contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk.

Session 1: Foundations of Tort Law Chapter 1: Introduction to Tort Law Tort law is a branch of civil law that addresses harm or injury caused by one party to another. Its primary goal is to provide remedies for the injured party and deter others from committing similar offenses. Key elements of tort law include duty, breach, causation, and damages. The chapter also explores the distinctions between intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability. Chapter 2: Intentional Torts Intentional torts involve deliberate actions that cause harm to another. Common examples include: Assault and Battery: Physical or verbal actions causing apprehension or harm. False Imprisonment: Restricting someone's movement without lawful justification. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Outrageous conduct causing severe emotional harm. Trespass to Land: Unauthorized entry onto another's property. Conversion: Interfering with someone's personal property. Each intentional tort requires proving intent, causation, and damages. Chapter 3: Negligence Negligence occurs when an individual fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another. The five key elements include: Duty of Care: The obligation to act reasonably to prevent harm. Breach of Duty: Failing to meet the standard of care. Causation: Connecting the breach to the harm (actual and proximate causation). Damages: Proving actual harm or injury. Defenses: Contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk.

First up on today's wide-ranging show, Ralph speaks to political scientist Adolph Reed about how American politics has started taking its cues from professional wrestling and how the left can rebuild itself. Then, we welcome Steve Silberstein from National Popular Vote to update us on their interstate compact's progress. Finally, we're joined by three interns from the American Museum of Tort Law—Dylan Bird, Gabriel Duffany, and Rachel Donovan discuss a rather unique summer assignment.Adolph Reed is Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Pennsylvania and an organizer with the Debs-Jones-Douglass Institute's Medicare for All-South Carolina initiative, and co-host of Class Matters Podcast. His most recent books are The South: Jim Crow and Its Afterlives and (with Walter Benn Michaels) No Politics but Class Politics.One of the things that struck me, especially, is during the pandemic it was striking to see how much full-blown animus toward government— or toward the idea of public and public goods—that there is out there in society at large. And we know Heritage (and the rest of the reactionary, the Koch brothers) have been fueling that and stoking that kind of resentment for as long as they've been around, frankly, right…But what's different is that since the Clinton years, the Democrats have been just as likely to attack the idea of government or public goods and public services, right? And they're more likely to do it backhandedly…So there hasn't been any space for people to connect even the fact that they like to go to the public library or like to use the public park with this bipartisan, full-bore attack on the idea of government. And that has gone so far and so deeply within society.Adolph ReedSteve Silberstein founded and served as the first president of Innovative Interfaces Inc., a leading supplier of computer software for the automation of college and city libraries. Mr. Silberstein sold his interest in the company in 2001 and now devotes his time to philanthropic and civic matters, one of which is sitting on the Board of Directors of National Popular Vote.Of the states that have passed [the National Popular Vote compact], it's mostly been with Democratic votes. Because for a while there's been a theory that Republicans couldn't win the national popular vote. That's why they opposed it. But now that they have actually won the popular vote this time around, that theory which caused some of them to oppose it has gone by the wayside.Steve SilbersteinThere's no reason for [Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan being “swing states”]. You know, those states didn't even exist when the constitution was established. It's just purely an accident…Those states are not typical of the United States—each state is unique in some way. So, Wisconsin has a big dairy industry. Pennsylvania has coal mining or fracking or something like that. So the candidates just concentrate on those—what are really very obscure issues to most of the people in the country. These states are not typical. They are not representative in any way shape or form of the rest of the country.Steve SilbersteinDylan Bird is a sophomore at St Lawrence University, pursuing a double major in Global Studies and Spanish on a Pre Law Track. Gabriel Duffany is a sophomore at the University of Connecticut, pursuing a double major in Human Rights and Communication also on a Pre Law Track, and he is an intern at the American Museum of Tort Law. Rachel Donovan is the Outreach Coordinator at the American Museum of Tort Law, and she is pursuing studies in education. All three recently worked as summer interns at the American Museum of Tort Law in the VoxBox Civic Engagement Summer Course, and they participated in Ralph Nader's Dictionary Pilot.It's a very daunting task when somebody hands you a full dictionary—over a thousand pages or so—and asks you to read it front-to-back. Once you start to actually sink your teeth into it…I actually found it to be a very positive experience. Rather than simply looking up individual words and ending your journey there, the goal really becomes the exploration of knowledge.Dylan BirdFor me, what really did stand out wasn't the individual words. It was more so the process of defining that I found the most compelling. So it showed up to me in the linguistic sense that these aren't exact definitions here. They're more so measurements, gauges of people's public opinions and definitions that would shift over time. So it was interesting to see how the evolution of words came, how meanings evolved over time with new technologies, new cultural moments. And as a news writer, I found that fascinating—the complexities of a word, the connotations that go with it, they can make or break the framing of any certain topic.Gabriel DuffanyI think that this project could be very important for students of all ages because it's not often that you would use a physical dictionary very much anymore—versus just going online and looking up a word. And now multiple definitions could come up—you may not even find exactly what you're looking for, because words undergo new meanings on a near-daily basis. And I think having the chance to read the original definition may give students new meanings to words that they may have thought they had the knowledge of due to social media.Rachel DonovanNews 12/25/241. On December 19th, the Teamsters announced they would launch “the largest strike against Amazon in U.S. history.” This strike covers nearly 10,000 Amazon workers who have joined the Teamsters, with workers taking to the picket line in New York City Atlanta, Southern California, San Francisco and Skokie, Illinois. Teamsters President Sean O'Brien is quoted saying “If your package is delayed during the holidays, you can blame Amazon's insatiable greed. We gave Amazon a clear deadline to come to the table and do right by our members. They ignored it…This strike is on them.” Scenes from this strike went viral over the holidays; one video posted by Labor Notes journalist Luis Feliz Leon shows NYPD officers guarding a path for Amazon trucks to depart after clearing away a blockade by striking workers – in case you were wondering whose side the cops are on.2. In more Amazon union news, INDY Week's Lena Geller reports that on December 23rd Amazon workers filed for a union election at the RDU1 warehouse in Garner, North Carolina. These workers are organizing under the auspices of Carolina Amazonians for Solidarity and Empowerment, aka CAUSE, which states that “despite an illegal campaign of intimidation by Amazon, which is desperate to keep unions out to continue paying poverty wages and failing to improve dismal work conditions,” the union believes they have “easily” exceeded the 30% card check threshold to demand an election. If successful, RDU1 would become the first unionized Amazon facility in the South.3. Independent investigative journalists Ken Klippenstein and Dan Boguslaw are out with a report on a potential conflict of interest in the Luigi Mangione prosecution. Apparently, “Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, who is overseeing pre-trial hearings for…Mangione, is married to a former Pfizer executive.” Judge Parker's husband, Bret Parker, had served as Vice President and assistant general counsel at Wyeth, and held the same titles after that company was purchased by Pfizer. According to financial disclosures, Mr. Parker still collects a pension from Pfizer in the form of a “Senior Executive Retirement Plan.” The Parkers also own hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of stock in Pfizer itself, along with other pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and healthcare companies. These holdings raise grave questions about the impartiality of this judge.4. In more news from New York, Gothamist reports New York Governor Kathy Hochul has vetoed a bill which would have “reversed New York's longstanding ban on jury service for anyone convicted of felonies at any point in their lives. If enacted, the bill would have allowed people with felony convictions to serve only after completing their sentences, including parole.” This bill passed with the support of the New York Civil Liberties Union and Phil Desgranges, an attorney at The Legal Aid Society, called this bill “common-sense legislation.” State Senator Jabari Brisport wrote “Fun fact about [New York] politics. The Governor has until end of year to sign bills so she usually waits until [the] holiday season and vetoes a bunch right before Christmas, hoping no one notices.” The Gothamist piece notes that Hochul vetoed 132 bills over the weekend.5. Turning to Israel, a remarkable story in unfolding around the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. According to Democracy Now!, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is planning to skip the anniversary “out of fears he might be arrested for committing war crimes in Gaza.” As we have documented on this program, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant in November, and since then various countries have grappled with their obligations under international law to arrest the pair. While certain ICC signatory nations like Germany and France have sought to weasel out of these commitments, according to this report, “Poland's deputy foreign minister recently confirmed Poland would comply with the ICC arrest warrants if Netanyahu visited.”6. On the domestic front, newly elected Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Greg Casar has sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin demanding that the Biden administration withhold new transfers of offensive weaponry to the Israeli military. In this letter, he and other progressive members of Congress make clear that the administration itself has “correctly identified steps the Israeli government must take in order for continued transfers…to be in accordance with U.S. law,” and that “the Israeli government has failed to take sufficient action or change course.” This letter is signed by 20 members of Congress including Casar himself along with Summer Lee, James McGovern, Mark Pocan, Pramila Jayapal, Sara Jacobs, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, and others.7. In a stunning story picked up by POLITICO, Republican Congresswoman Kay Granger – chair of the critical House Appropriations Committee until last April – has been missing in action for months. Despite continuing to hold her Texas seat, she has not cast a vote at all since July. Calls to her office went unanswered and unreturned. Visits to her office found it vacant. And when investigative reporters sought her out, they wound up finding her in an assisted living facility wracked with dementia. This story is tragic; Granger's son has spoken out since publication, addressing how rapidly his mother's mental decline has progressed. Yet, this is just the most striking example of the gerontocracy that has gripped Capitol Hill. And at least Granger had the sense remaining to recuse herself from votes; rebellious Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is quoted saying he's “more concerned about the congressmen who have dementia and are still voting.”8. Moving to some good news, the Federal Trade Commission announced last week that they, along with the Attorney General of Illinois, have reached a $25 million settlement with food delivery giant GrubHub, stemming from the firm's engagement in “an array of unlawful practices including deceiving diners about delivery costs and blocking their access to their accounts and funds, deceiving workers about how much money they would make delivering food, and unfairly and deceptively listing restaurants on its platform without their permission.” In addition to the monetary penalty, the company must make significant changes to its operations model, including “telling consumers the full cost of delivery, honestly advertising pay for drivers, and listing restaurants on its platform only with their consent.” This is a victory for consumers, workers, restaurants, but perhaps above all, the rule of law. As FTC Chair Lina Khan puts it “There is no ‘gig platform' exemption to the laws on the books.”9. On December 23rd, President Biden announced that he would commute the death sentences for 37 out of the 40 federal prisoners on death row, in a major victory for ending executions by the state. These sentences have been commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In a statement, Biden wrote “I've dedicated my career to reducing violent crime and ensuring a fair and effective justice system…Make no mistake: I condemn these murderers, grieve for the victims of their despicable acts, and ache for all the families who have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss. But… I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level.” He ends this statement by alluding to the fact that as president he has imposed a moratorium on federal executions and fears that the incoming Trump administration will resume state-sponsored killings. Per AP, the three inmates whose sentences were not commuted are: Dylann Roof, the Mother Emanuel AME Church shooter, Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and Tree of Life Synagogue shooter Robert Bowers.10. Finally, on Christmas Eve, Bernie Sanders issued a statement laying out “How to Make America Healthy Again,” echoing the language used by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Under Bernie's plan, this initiative would include Medicare for All, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, paid family and medical leave, a 32-hour work week, raising the minimum wage, and reforms to the food industry itself, such as banning junk food ads and stronger warning labels on high-sugar products. As with Bernie's qualified embrace of the “Department of Government Efficiency” this should be seen as a savvy move to call the Trump team's bluff. Will they really go after big sugar? Or will they bend the knee to their corporate benefactors yet again?This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Defamation Law in the Digital Age Main Themes: Balancing act: Defamation law seeks to protect individual reputations while upholding the First Amendment's free speech guarantees. Evolution of defamation: Traditional libel and slander laws are being challenged by the rapid evolution of online communication. Defining defamation: Understanding the elements of a defamation claim, including the distinction between fact and opinion and the varying fault standards for public and private figures. Defenses and Immunities: Exploring defenses like truth, privilege, and fair comment, as well as the implications of Section 230 immunity for online platforms. Key Ideas & Facts: Elements of Defamation: A plaintiff must prove: A false and defamatory statement of fact. Opinions are generally not actionable unless they imply a false factual assertion (Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.). The statement concerns the plaintiff. Publication of the statement to a third party. Fault by the defendant: Actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth) for public figures and officials (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan). Negligence for private individuals (though actual malice might be required in some cases involving matters of public concern). Damages suffered by the plaintiff. Types of Defamation: Libel: Written or published defamation, often presumed to cause damages. Slander: Spoken defamation, requiring proof of special damages unless it falls under slander per se. Slander per se includes statements alleging criminal activity, loathsome disease, professional misconduct, or sexual misconduct. Defenses to Defamation: Truth: An absolute defense. Privilege:Absolute privilege: Applies to statements in legislative debates, judicial proceedings, etc. Qualified privilege: Applies to statements made in good faith on matters of public interest, but can be defeated by actual malice. Opinion and Fair Comment: Protected speech, especially when based on true facts and related to public issues. Consent: If the plaintiff agreed to publication. Retraction Statutes: Limits liability if a timely retraction is issued. First Amendment Considerations: Public Figures & Actual Malice: Robust public discourse requires a higher burden of proof for defamation claims against public figures. Matters of Public Concern: Speech on public issues enjoys heightened protection. Hyperbole and Satire: Non-factual assertions, like parody, are generally not actionable (Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell). Challenges in the Digital Age: Online Defamation: The viral spread of defamatory content through social media presents new challenges. Section 230 Immunity: Protects online platforms from liability for content posted by third parties, but raises questions about accountability. Anti-SLAPP Statutes: Aim to discourage meritless defamation lawsuits used to silence critics on matters of public concern. Quotes: "Few areas of law occupy a more precarious balance between personal dignity and freedom of expression than defamation." "Truth is an absolute defense to defamation." "Robust debate on matters of public concern is essential to democracy." Conclusion: Defamation law is continually evolving to address the challenges posed by online communication. Understanding the intricacies of this area of law is crucial for navigating the balance between protecting reputations and upholding free speech principles. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today, we're discussing substantive Criminal Law, specifically the crimes of assault and battery. We covered these topics as elements of Tort Law in Episode 288. In this episode we discuss: The definitions of assault and battery Two case studies illustrating assault and battery crimes Exam tips for answering Crim Law questions Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/law-school-toolbox-podcast-substantive-law-topics/#listen-learn) Podcast Episode 248: Listen and Learn – Introduction to Homicide (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-248-listen-and-learn-introduction-to-homicide/) Podcast Episode 288: Listen and Learn – Assault and Battery (Torts) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-288-listen-and-learn-assault-and-battery-torts/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-482-listen-and-learn-assault-and-battery-crim-law/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Elements of Negligence Source: Excerpts from "Elements of Negligence: In-Depth Explanation" Main Themes: This document provides a comprehensive overview of the four key elements required to prove negligence in tort law: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. It emphasizes the "reasonable person standard" as a central concept in evaluating negligent conduct. The document also highlights the challenges and criticisms associated with applying negligence principles in practice. Most Important Ideas/Facts: 1. Duty of Care: Definition: A legal obligation to act reasonably to prevent harm to others. Establishment: Determined by the relationship between parties and foreseeability of harm. Key Case: Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) established the duty of care manufacturers owe to consumers, expanding its scope beyond contractual relationships. "In Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), a landmark case in tort law, a woman became ill after drinking ginger beer containing a decomposing snail. The court held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer..." 2. Breach of Duty: Definition: Failure to meet the expected standard of care, acting unreasonably in the given circumstances. Assessment: Judged against the "reasonable person standard" objectively, regardless of individual intentions. Key Case: Vaughan v. Menlove (1837) demonstrated that breach is evaluated objectively, not based on the defendant's subjective understanding. "Although the defendant claimed he had acted to the best of his judgment, the court held him liable, establishing that breach of duty is judged by an objective standard of reasonableness rather than the defendant's subjective understanding." 3. Causation: Definition: The link between the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's harm, requiring both factual and legal causation. Factual Causation: Established through the "but-for" test, determining if the harm would have occurred without the defendant's actions. Legal Causation: Limits liability to foreseeable harms closely connected to the breach. Key Case: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928) emphasized proximate cause, restricting liability to foreseeable consequences of the breach. "In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928), the court ruled that the harm to Mrs. Palsgraf (injured by falling scales) was not a foreseeable result of the railroad's employees helping a man with a package. Thus, there was no proximate causation..." 4. Damages: Definition: The actual harm suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant's breach, typically compensatory in nature. Types: Include economic (e.g., medical bills, lost wages) and non-economic (e.g., pain and suffering) damages. Mitigation: Plaintiffs have a duty to take reasonable steps to minimize their losses. Challenges and Criticisms of Negligence: Ambiguity of "Reasonable Person": The standard can be subjective, leading to inconsistent outcomes. Proving Causation: Difficult in cases involving complex or indirect harm, multiple causes, or scientific uncertainties. Limitations on Duty of Care: Courts may restrict duty to prevent excessive litigation, potentially denying recovery for valid harms. Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Damages: Quantifying and demonstrating intangible damages can be challenging. Conclusion: The elements of negligence are crucial for: Analyzing negligence cases and predicting liability. Balancing individual responsibility with societal safety. Promoting a fair and just approach to accountability for harmful actions. Understanding these elements, along with their challenges and criticisms, is essential for anyone involved in legal practice or studying law. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Strict Liability in Tort Law Source: Excerpts from "Strict Liability in Tort Law: An In-Depth Exploration" Main Themes: Definition and Scope of Strict Liability: Strict liability holds defendants liable for harm caused by certain activities or products, regardless of intent or negligence. It applies to inherently dangerous activities, defective products, and situations impacting public welfare. Historical Origins: The doctrine originated in English common law, notably the Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) case, which established liability for damages caused by hazardous substances escaping one's property. Key Elements: Strict liability requires (1) involvement in inherently dangerous or hazardous activities, (2) causation between the defendant's action and the harm, and (3) foreseeability of the risk. Applications: Strict liability is frequently applied in product liability, abnormally dangerous activities, animal-related injuries, environmental hazards, and vicarious liability. Justifications: The doctrine encourages safer practices, allocates risk to those best able to manage it, simplifies litigation, and protects public welfare. Critiques and Limitations: Critics argue that strict liability can unfairly burden defendants, hinder innovation, disregard fault, and lead to inconsistent application across jurisdictions. Most Important Ideas/Facts: Strict liability focuses on the inherent risk of an activity or product, not the defendant's conduct. "Unlike traditional negligence cases... strict liability focuses on the nature of the activity itself." The doctrine aims to protect the public and encourage extreme caution in high-risk situations. "This approach is designed to protect the public and encourage extra caution in certain high-risk industries and activities." Landmark cases illustrate the evolution and application of strict liability. Rylands v. Fletcher – Established the principle of liability for escapes of dangerous substances. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. – Reinforced strict liability for defective products. Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. – Advocated for placing responsibility on the party best able to prevent harm. Strict liability promotes safety by incentivizing responsible behavior. "By holding parties strictly liable, the law incentivizes businesses and individuals engaged in dangerous activities to adopt higher safety standards." The doctrine faces criticism for potentially being unfair and stifling innovation. "Critics argue that strict liability imposes an unfair burden on defendants who may be held liable even when they exercised due care." Quotes: "Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a defendant liable for certain activities or actions without requiring proof of intent or negligence." "The strict liability principle operates under the notion that those who engage in particularly risky activities or manufacture products that may cause harm should bear the burden of any resulting damages, regardless of their level of care." "Strict liability differs from negligence or intentional torts because it does not require proof of fault, intent, or a breach of duty." Conclusion: Strict liability is a complex legal doctrine that balances the need to protect the public from harm with concerns about fairness and economic consequences. Understanding its history, applications, justifications, and limitations is crucial for analyzing tort cases and understanding the evolving landscape of legal responsibility in high-risk situations. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Can you sue protesters who block the street in front of your business? Protesters who block your way to work? People who are trying to get you fired? Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer, who have written and taught about tort law as well as free speech law, discuss all these questions and more. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Karan Girotra, a professor at the Cornell SC Johnson College of Business and Cornell Tech, and Frank Pasquale, a professor of law at Cornell Tech and Cornell Law School, discuss the laws and ethics of generative AI while looking at performance guarantees as well as unintended consequences and outcomes.The conversation highlights how organizations in finance, health, education, media and manufacturing are using these technologies in clever ways and charts a path for the next generation of use cases — ones that go beyond using assistants to enhance individual productivity.What You'll LearnHow the laws and ethics of generative AI are guiding — or not guiding — practices at organizationsHow leading organizations in finance, health, education, media and manufacturing are using AI ethically and legallyHow to identify viable new use cases for AI in your businessThe Cornell Keynotes podcast is brought to you by eCornell, which offers more than 200 online certificate programs to help professionals advance their careers and organizations. Karan Girotra and Frank Pasquale are authors of the Generative AI for Productivity certificate. Additional online and in-person programs from these Cornell faculty members include:AI 360AI for Digital TransformationCornell Tech Board of Directors ForumDigital LeadershipOmnichannel Leadership ProgramRetail Media StrategyLearn more about all of our generative AI certificate programs.Follow Girotra on LinkedIn and X.Did you enjoy this episode of the Cornell Keynotes podcast? Watch the Keynote. Follow eCornell on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, and X.

Summary of Chapter 10: Defenses to Tort Claims. Chapter 10 provides a comprehensive overview of the various defenses available in tort law, which defendants can use to avoid or mitigate liability. These defenses are essential in balancing the rights of plaintiffs and defendants, ensuring that justice is served while protecting legitimate actions under certain circumstances. Key Defenses Discussed: Consent: Definition: Consent is a defense where the plaintiff has agreed to the defendant's actions, negating liability. This consent can be express or implied, and it must be informed and voluntary. Application: Common in cases involving physical contact, such as sports or medical procedures, where consent is given by participating or agreeing to the activity. Self-Defense: Definition: Self-defense allows a person to use reasonable force to protect themselves from harm. The force used must be proportional to the threat faced. Special Contexts: Includes the "castle doctrine," which permits force to protect one's home, and "stand your ground" laws, which remove the duty to retreat before using force in public. Defense of Others: Definition: Similar to self-defense, this defense allows the use of reasonable force to protect another person from harm. Considerations: The belief in the need to defend must be reasonable, and the force used must be proportional to the threat faced by the person being defended. Defense of Property: Definition: Property owners can use reasonable force to protect their property from unlawful interference or trespass. Limitations: The force used must not be excessive, and deadly force is generally not justified unless there is also a threat to life. Necessity: Types: Includes public necessity, where actions are taken to prevent a greater harm to the community, and private necessity, where actions protect individual interests from significant harm. Key Points: While necessity can justify the infringement of another's rights, especially in emergencies, the defendant may still be liable for damages in cases of private necessity. Statutory Privileges: Definition: These are defenses granted by specific laws, offering immunity or protection from liability for certain actions. Common examples include governmental immunity, Good Samaritan laws, and professional privileges. Conditions and Limitations: Statutory privileges are subject to compliance with the law, good faith, and reasonableness. They can be limited by abuse, statutory exceptions, and public policy considerations. Impact and Significance: The defenses covered in Chapter 10 are critical for maintaining a fair legal system. They ensure that individuals and entities are not held liable for actions that are justified or protected by law. Each defense has specific conditions and limitations, emphasizing the importance of reasonableness, proportionality, and good faith in legal disputes. Understanding these defenses allows for better navigation of the complexities of tort law, ensuring that justice is balanced between protecting rights and recognizing legitimate actions. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 10: Defenses to Tort Claims. Chapter 10 provides a comprehensive overview of the various defenses available in tort law, which defendants can use to avoid or mitigate liability. These defenses are essential in balancing the rights of plaintiffs and defendants, ensuring that justice is served while protecting legitimate actions under certain circumstances. Key Defenses Discussed: Consent: Definition: Consent is a defense where the plaintiff has agreed to the defendant's actions, negating liability. This consent can be express or implied, and it must be informed and voluntary. Application: Common in cases involving physical contact, such as sports or medical procedures, where consent is given by participating or agreeing to the activity. Self-Defense: Definition: Self-defense allows a person to use reasonable force to protect themselves from harm. The force used must be proportional to the threat faced. Special Contexts: Includes the "castle doctrine," which permits force to protect one's home, and "stand your ground" laws, which remove the duty to retreat before using force in public. Defense of Others: Definition: Similar to self-defense, this defense allows the use of reasonable force to protect another person from harm. Considerations: The belief in the need to defend must be reasonable, and the force used must be proportional to the threat faced by the person being defended. Defense of Property: Definition: Property owners can use reasonable force to protect their property from unlawful interference or trespass. Limitations: The force used must not be excessive, and deadly force is generally not justified unless there is also a threat to life. Necessity: Types: Includes public necessity, where actions are taken to prevent a greater harm to the community, and private necessity, where actions protect individual interests from significant harm. Key Points: While necessity can justify the infringement of another's rights, especially in emergencies, the defendant may still be liable for damages in cases of private necessity. Statutory Privileges: Definition: These are defenses granted by specific laws, offering immunity or protection from liability for certain actions. Common examples include governmental immunity, Good Samaritan laws, and professional privileges. Conditions and Limitations: Statutory privileges are subject to compliance with the law, good faith, and reasonableness. They can be limited by abuse, statutory exceptions, and public policy considerations. Impact and Significance: The defenses covered in Chapter 10 are critical for maintaining a fair legal system. They ensure that individuals and entities are not held liable for actions that are justified or protected by law. Each defense has specific conditions and limitations, emphasizing the importance of reasonableness, proportionality, and good faith in legal disputes. Understanding these defenses allows for better navigation of the complexities of tort law, ensuring that justice is balanced between protecting rights and recognizing legitimate actions. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 9: Damages in Tort Law. Chapter 9 provides an in-depth exploration of the various types of damages and equitable remedies available in tort law, focusing on how these legal tools are used to address wrongs and provide justice to plaintiffs. Compensatory Damages. Purpose: Compensatory damages are awarded to make the plaintiff "whole" again by covering both economic and non-economic losses. Types: Economic Damages: Include quantifiable financial losses such as medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and loss of earning capacity. Non-Economic Damages: Compensate for subjective losses like pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and loss of enjoyment of life. Factors Influencing Awards: Severity of the injury, duration of harm, impact on the plaintiff's life, age and life expectancy, comparative negligence, and economic conditions all play roles in determining the amount of compensatory damages. Punitive Damages. Purpose: Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant for particularly egregious or malicious conduct and to deter similar behavior in the future. Conditions for Awarding: Typically awarded in cases involving malice, fraud, or gross negligence, and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Limitations: Punitive damages must be proportional to the harm caused and are subject to constitutional limits, statutory caps, and review by appellate courts. Nominal Damages. Purpose: Nominal damages recognize the violation of the plaintiff's rights in cases where no substantial harm has occurred. They serve to affirm the plaintiff's legal rights, establish precedents, and may support the award of other remedies. Impact: Although small in monetary value, nominal damages have significant legal and symbolic importance, acknowledging the plaintiff's rights and potentially setting important legal precedents. Equitable Remedies. Purpose: Equitable remedies provide non-monetary relief when legal remedies, such as damages, are insufficient to address the harm suffered by the plaintiff. These remedies are based on principles of fairness and justice. Types: Injunctions: Court orders to stop or compel specific actions by the defendant. Specific Performance: Compels the defendant to fulfill contractual obligations. Rescission: Cancels a contract and restores parties to their pre-contractual positions. Reformation: Modifies a contract to reflect the true intentions of the parties. Conditions: Equitable remedies are granted when legal remedies are inadequate, and they require the plaintiff to have "clean hands." Courts also consider the balance of hardships and the feasibility of enforcement. Impact: Equitable remedies are essential for preventing ongoing harm, restoring rights, and ensuring justice is served in complex legal disputes. Chapter 9 emphasizes the importance of these remedies in the broader context of tort law, highlighting their role in achieving justice, protecting rights, and promoting fairness in legal proceedings. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 9: Damages in Tort Law. Chapter 9 provides an in-depth exploration of the various types of damages and equitable remedies available in tort law, focusing on how these legal tools are used to address wrongs and provide justice to plaintiffs. Compensatory Damages. Purpose: Compensatory damages are awarded to make the plaintiff "whole" again by covering both economic and non-economic losses. Types: Economic Damages: Include quantifiable financial losses such as medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and loss of earning capacity. Non-Economic Damages: Compensate for subjective losses like pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and loss of enjoyment of life. Factors Influencing Awards: Severity of the injury, duration of harm, impact on the plaintiff's life, age and life expectancy, comparative negligence, and economic conditions all play roles in determining the amount of compensatory damages. Punitive Damages. Purpose: Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant for particularly egregious or malicious conduct and to deter similar behavior in the future. Conditions for Awarding: Typically awarded in cases involving malice, fraud, or gross negligence, and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Limitations: Punitive damages must be proportional to the harm caused and are subject to constitutional limits, statutory caps, and review by appellate courts. Nominal Damages. Purpose: Nominal damages recognize the violation of the plaintiff's rights in cases where no substantial harm has occurred. They serve to affirm the plaintiff's legal rights, establish precedents, and may support the award of other remedies. Impact: Although small in monetary value, nominal damages have significant legal and symbolic importance, acknowledging the plaintiff's rights and potentially setting important legal precedents. Equitable Remedies. Purpose: Equitable remedies provide non-monetary relief when legal remedies, such as damages, are insufficient to address the harm suffered by the plaintiff. These remedies are based on principles of fairness and justice. Types: Injunctions: Court orders to stop or compel specific actions by the defendant. Specific Performance: Compels the defendant to fulfill contractual obligations. Rescission: Cancels a contract and restores parties to their pre-contractual positions. Reformation: Modifies a contract to reflect the true intentions of the parties. Conditions: Equitable remedies are granted when legal remedies are inadequate, and they require the plaintiff to have "clean hands." Courts also consider the balance of hardships and the feasibility of enforcement. Impact: Equitable remedies are essential for preventing ongoing harm, restoring rights, and ensuring justice is served in complex legal disputes. Chapter 9 emphasizes the importance of these remedies in the broader context of tort law, highlighting their role in achieving justice, protecting rights, and promoting fairness in legal proceedings. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 8: Nuisance. Chapter 8 explores the concept of nuisance within tort law, focusing on two primary types: Private Nuisance and Public Nuisance. This chapter delves into the legal principles, elements, defenses, and remedies associated with nuisance claims, providing a comprehensive understanding of how the law addresses these issues. Private Nuisance. Definition: Private nuisance involves an unreasonable interference with an individual's use and enjoyment of their property. The interference must be substantial, going beyond minor inconveniences. Elements: To establish a private nuisance claim, a plaintiff must prove unreasonable interference, causation, and actual harm or damage. Types: Private nuisance can manifest as physical damage to property, interference with comfort and convenience, or encroachment. Examples: Common examples include noise pollution, odor pollution, water damage, and light pollution. Defenses: Defenses to private nuisance include statutory authority, coming to the nuisance, prescription, and consent. Remedies: Remedies for private nuisance include injunctions, damages, and abatement. Public Nuisance. Definition: Public nuisance affects the rights of the general public rather than just an individual or small group. It involves an unreasonable interference with public rights, such as public health, safety, or access to public spaces. Elements: To prove public nuisance, the plaintiff must show interference with a public right, unreasonableness, and actual harm or danger to the public. Examples: Examples of public nuisance include environmental pollution, obstruction of public highways, noise pollution in public spaces, and maintaining dangerous premises. Defenses: Defenses to public nuisance include statutory authority, public benefit, contributory negligence, and prescription. Remedies: Remedies for public nuisance include injunctions, abatement, damages, and public compensation. Remedies for Nuisance. Injunctions: Court orders that require the defendant to stop or refrain from the nuisance-causing activity. Injunctions can be prohibitory or mandatory. Damages: Monetary compensation awarded to the plaintiff for harm suffered due to the nuisance. Damages can be compensatory, consequential, or exemplary. Abatement: A self-help remedy that allows the plaintiff to take direct action to stop the nuisance, such as removing the source of interference. Public Remedies: In public nuisance cases, remedies often involve public authorities seeking relief on behalf of the community, including public injunctions, compensation funds, and abatement orders. Key Case Studies. Sturges v Bridgman (1879): A significant case in private nuisance law that established the principle of reasonable use of land, highlighting the importance of locality in nuisance claims. Attorney General v PYA Quarries Limited (1957): A landmark case in public nuisance law that affirmed the concept of public nuisance affecting a substantial portion of the community. Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Public Limited Company (1994): A case that emphasized the importance of public remedies in addressing environmental harm caused by public nuisance. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 8: Nuisance. Chapter 8 explores the concept of nuisance within tort law, focusing on two primary types: Private Nuisance and Public Nuisance. This chapter delves into the legal principles, elements, defenses, and remedies associated with nuisance claims, providing a comprehensive understanding of how the law addresses these issues. Private Nuisance. Definition: Private nuisance involves an unreasonable interference with an individual's use and enjoyment of their property. The interference must be substantial, going beyond minor inconveniences. Elements: To establish a private nuisance claim, a plaintiff must prove unreasonable interference, causation, and actual harm or damage. Types: Private nuisance can manifest as physical damage to property, interference with comfort and convenience, or encroachment. Examples: Common examples include noise pollution, odor pollution, water damage, and light pollution. Defenses: Defenses to private nuisance include statutory authority, coming to the nuisance, prescription, and consent. Remedies: Remedies for private nuisance include injunctions, damages, and abatement. Public Nuisance. Definition: Public nuisance affects the rights of the general public rather than just an individual or small group. It involves an unreasonable interference with public rights, such as public health, safety, or access to public spaces. Elements: To prove public nuisance, the plaintiff must show interference with a public right, unreasonableness, and actual harm or danger to the public. Examples: Examples of public nuisance include environmental pollution, obstruction of public highways, noise pollution in public spaces, and maintaining dangerous premises. Defenses: Defenses to public nuisance include statutory authority, public benefit, contributory negligence, and prescription. Remedies: Remedies for public nuisance include injunctions, abatement, damages, and public compensation. Remedies for Nuisance. Injunctions: Court orders that require the defendant to stop or refrain from the nuisance-causing activity. Injunctions can be prohibitory or mandatory. Damages: Monetary compensation awarded to the plaintiff for harm suffered due to the nuisance. Damages can be compensatory, consequential, or exemplary. Abatement: A self-help remedy that allows the plaintiff to take direct action to stop the nuisance, such as removing the source of interference. Public Remedies: In public nuisance cases, remedies often involve public authorities seeking relief on behalf of the community, including public injunctions, compensation funds, and abatement orders. Key Case Studies. Sturges v Bridgman (1879): A significant case in private nuisance law that established the principle of reasonable use of land, highlighting the importance of locality in nuisance claims. Attorney General v PYA Quarries Limited (1957): A landmark case in public nuisance law that affirmed the concept of public nuisance affecting a substantial portion of the community. Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Public Limited Company (1994): A case that emphasized the importance of public remedies in addressing environmental harm caused by public nuisance. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 8: Nuisance. Chapter 8 explores the concept of nuisance within tort law, focusing on two primary types: Private Nuisance and Public Nuisance. This chapter delves into the legal principles, elements, defenses, and remedies associated with nuisance claims, providing a comprehensive understanding of how the law addresses these issues. Private Nuisance. Definition: Private nuisance involves an unreasonable interference with an individual's use and enjoyment of their property. The interference must be substantial, going beyond minor inconveniences. Elements: To establish a private nuisance claim, a plaintiff must prove unreasonable interference, causation, and actual harm or damage. Types: Private nuisance can manifest as physical damage to property, interference with comfort and convenience, or encroachment. Examples: Common examples include noise pollution, odor pollution, water damage, and light pollution. Defenses: Defenses to private nuisance include statutory authority, coming to the nuisance, prescription, and consent. Remedies: Remedies for private nuisance include injunctions, damages, and abatement. Public Nuisance. Definition: Public nuisance affects the rights of the general public rather than just an individual or small group. It involves an unreasonable interference with public rights, such as public health, safety, or access to public spaces. Elements: To prove public nuisance, the plaintiff must show interference with a public right, unreasonableness, and actual harm or danger to the public. Examples: Examples of public nuisance include environmental pollution, obstruction of public highways, noise pollution in public spaces, and maintaining dangerous premises. Defenses: Defenses to public nuisance include statutory authority, public benefit, contributory negligence, and prescription. Remedies: Remedies for public nuisance include injunctions, abatement, damages, and public compensation. Remedies for Nuisance. Injunctions: Court orders that require the defendant to stop or refrain from the nuisance-causing activity. Injunctions can be prohibitory or mandatory. Damages: Monetary compensation awarded to the plaintiff for harm suffered due to the nuisance. Damages can be compensatory, consequential, or exemplary. Abatement: A self-help remedy that allows the plaintiff to take direct action to stop the nuisance, such as removing the source of interference. Public Remedies: In public nuisance cases, remedies often involve public authorities seeking relief on behalf of the community, including public injunctions, compensation funds, and abatement orders. Key Case Studies. Sturges v Bridgman (1879): A significant case in private nuisance law that established the principle of reasonable use of land, highlighting the importance of locality in nuisance claims. Attorney General v PYA Quarries Limited (1957): A landmark case in public nuisance law that affirmed the concept of public nuisance affecting a substantial portion of the community. Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Public Limited Company (1994): A case that emphasized the importance of public remedies in addressing environmental harm caused by public nuisance. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Chapter 7: Economic Torts. Economic torts play a vital role in protecting businesses and individuals from wrongful interference with economic relationships and misleading representations. By understanding the intricacies of interference with contractual relations, interference with prospective economic advantage, and misrepresentation, legal practitioners, business owners, and individuals can safeguard their economic interests and promote fair competition in the marketplace. Interference with Contractual Relations: This tort underscores the importance of protecting existing contractual relationships from wrongful disruptions. Businesses must be vigilant in safeguarding their contracts and taking appropriate legal action when interference occurs. Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage: This tort emphasizes the need to protect potential business opportunities from wrongful interference. By maintaining ethical business practices and fostering strong relationships, businesses can navigate competitive landscapes while upholding legal standards. Misrepresentation: This tort highlights the significance of accuracy and honesty in business transactions. By ensuring truthful representations and conducting due diligence, businesses can minimize the risk of liability and build trust with clients and partners. Overall, economic torts serve as a critical framework for addressing wrongful conduct that threatens economic stability and growth. By understanding and applying the principles of these torts, individuals and businesses can protect their economic interests and contribute to a fair and transparent marketplace. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Chapter 7: Economic Torts. Economic torts play a vital role in protecting businesses and individuals from wrongful interference with economic relationships and misleading representations. By understanding the intricacies of interference with contractual relations, interference with prospective economic advantage, and misrepresentation, legal practitioners, business owners, and individuals can safeguard their economic interests and promote fair competition in the marketplace. Interference with Contractual Relations: This tort underscores the importance of protecting existing contractual relationships from wrongful disruptions. Businesses must be vigilant in safeguarding their contracts and taking appropriate legal action when interference occurs. Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage: This tort emphasizes the need to protect potential business opportunities from wrongful interference. By maintaining ethical business practices and fostering strong relationships, businesses can navigate competitive landscapes while upholding legal standards. Misrepresentation: This tort highlights the significance of accuracy and honesty in business transactions. By ensuring truthful representations and conducting due diligence, businesses can minimize the risk of liability and build trust with clients and partners. Overall, economic torts serve as a critical framework for addressing wrongful conduct that threatens economic stability and growth. By understanding and applying the principles of these torts, individuals and businesses can protect their economic interests and contribute to a fair and transparent marketplace. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Privacy Torts Privacy torts are civil wrongs that protect an individual's right to privacy. These torts can arise from a variety of actions, such as intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of name or likeness, public disclosure of private facts, and false light. Intrusion upon Seclusion Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when someone intentionally intrudes upon another person's solitude or seclusion. This can include physically entering someone's home without permission, spying on someone, or eavesdropping on a private conversation. Appropriation of Name or Likeness Appropriation of name or likeness occurs when someone uses another person's name, likeness, or other identifying characteristics without their consent. This can include using someone's name or image in an advertisement, on a product, or in a work of art. Public Disclosure of Private Facts Public disclosure of private facts occurs when someone discloses private information about another person to the public. This can include disclosing someone's medical history, financial information, or sexual orientation. False Light False light occurs when someone portrays another person in a false or misleading light. This can include publishing a false or misleading story about someone, or creating a composite image of someone that is not accurate. Privacy torts can have a significant impact on the victim, causing emotional distress, humiliation, and even financial harm. Victims of privacy torts may be able to recover damages for their injuries, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. In addition to the four privacy torts discussed above, there are a number of other legal doctrines that can protect an individual's privacy. These include the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which protects the privacy of medical information. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Privacy Torts Privacy torts are civil wrongs that protect an individual's right to privacy. These torts can arise from a variety of actions, such as intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of name or likeness, public disclosure of private facts, and false light. Intrusion upon Seclusion Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when someone intentionally intrudes upon another person's solitude or seclusion. This can include physically entering someone's home without permission, spying on someone, or eavesdropping on a private conversation. Appropriation of Name or Likeness Appropriation of name or likeness occurs when someone uses another person's name, likeness, or other identifying characteristics without their consent. This can include using someone's name or image in an advertisement, on a product, or in a work of art. Public Disclosure of Private Facts Public disclosure of private facts occurs when someone discloses private information about another person to the public. This can include disclosing someone's medical history, financial information, or sexual orientation. False Light False light occurs when someone portrays another person in a false or misleading light. This can include publishing a false or misleading story about someone, or creating a composite image of someone that is not accurate. Privacy torts can have a significant impact on the victim, causing emotional distress, humiliation, and even financial harm. Victims of privacy torts may be able to recover damages for their injuries, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. In addition to the four privacy torts discussed above, there are a number of other legal doctrines that can protect an individual's privacy. These include the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which protects the privacy of medical information. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Privacy Torts Privacy torts are civil wrongs that protect an individual's right to privacy. These torts can arise from a variety of actions, such as intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of name or likeness, public disclosure of private facts, and false light. Intrusion upon Seclusion Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when someone intentionally intrudes upon another person's solitude or seclusion. This can include physically entering someone's home without permission, spying on someone, or eavesdropping on a private conversation. Appropriation of Name or Likeness Appropriation of name or likeness occurs when someone uses another person's name, likeness, or other identifying characteristics without their consent. This can include using someone's name or image in an advertisement, on a product, or in a work of art. Public Disclosure of Private Facts Public disclosure of private facts occurs when someone discloses private information about another person to the public. This can include disclosing someone's medical history, financial information, or sexual orientation. False Light False light occurs when someone portrays another person in a false or misleading light. This can include publishing a false or misleading story about someone, or creating a composite image of someone that is not accurate. Privacy torts can have a significant impact on the victim, causing emotional distress, humiliation, and even financial harm. Victims of privacy torts may be able to recover damages for their injuries, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. In addition to the four privacy torts discussed above, there are a number of other legal doctrines that can protect an individual's privacy. These include the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which protects the privacy of medical information. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 5: Defamation. Chapter 5 delves into the complexities of defamation law, focusing on the legal distinctions between libel and slander, the elements necessary to establish a defamation claim, and the defenses available to those accused of defamation. Additionally, the chapter examines how defamation law treats public figures differently from private individuals and the various privileges that protect certain statements from defamation claims. Libel and Slander: Libel: Defamation in a fixed medium, such as written or published statements in newspapers, books, or online. Libel is considered more harmful due to its permanence and broader reach. Slander: Defamation through spoken words or gestures, typically considered less damaging because it is transient. Key Differences: Libel involves written statements and is presumed harmful, while slander involves spoken statements and often requires proof of actual harm or special damages. Elements of Defamation: To establish a defamation claim, the plaintiff must prove: False Statement: The statement must be factually incorrect. Defamatory Statement: The statement must harm the plaintiff's reputation. Publication: The statement must be communicated to a third party. Fault: The standard of fault varies; private individuals need to prove negligence, while public figures must prove actual malice. Harm: The statement must cause actual injury to the plaintiff's reputation or livelihood. Defenses to Defamation: Defendants can raise several defenses to avoid liability: Truth: An absolute defense; if the statement is true, it is not defamatory. Privilege: Protects certain statements made in specific contexts. Absolute Privilege: Applies to statements made during legislative, judicial, or certain executive proceedings. Qualified Privilege: Applies to statements made in good faith on matters of public interest or where there is a duty to communicate the information. Opinion: Statements of opinion are not considered defamatory because they cannot be proven true or false. Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the publication, they cannot claim defamation. Statute of Limitations: Defamation claims must be filed within a specific period after the statement is made. Public Figures and Privilege: Defamation law distinguishes between private individuals and public figures, applying different standards for each. Public Figures: Definition: Individuals who have achieved fame or notoriety or have injected themselves into public controversies. Higher Burden of Proof: Must prove actual malice. Rationale: Greater access to communication channels to counteract false statements and the public's interest in open debate. Private Individuals: Definition: Those who have not sought out public attention or influence. Lower Burden of Proof: Need only prove negligence. Rationale: More vulnerable to reputational harm and limited access to public rebuttal. Privileges: Absolute Privilege: Protects statements made in specific contexts regardless of their truth or intent. Qualified Privilege: Protects statements made in good faith on matters of public interest or where there is a duty to communicate the information. Case Illustrations: Public Figure: A well-known celebrity must prove actual malice to win a defamation lawsuit against a tabloid. Private Individual: A private school teacher needs to prove negligence to win a defamation case against a parent spreading false rumors. By examining the elements of defamation, defenses, and the differing standards for public figures and private individuals, this chapter provides a comprehensive understanding of defamation law's complexities and nuances. It balances the protection of reputations with the principles of free expression and public debate. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 5: Defamation. Chapter 5 delves into the complexities of defamation law, focusing on the legal distinctions between libel and slander, the elements necessary to establish a defamation claim, and the defenses available to those accused of defamation. Additionally, the chapter examines how defamation law treats public figures differently from private individuals and the various privileges that protect certain statements from defamation claims. Libel and Slander: Libel: Defamation in a fixed medium, such as written or published statements in newspapers, books, or online. Libel is considered more harmful due to its permanence and broader reach. Slander: Defamation through spoken words or gestures, typically considered less damaging because it is transient. Key Differences: Libel involves written statements and is presumed harmful, while slander involves spoken statements and often requires proof of actual harm or special damages. Elements of Defamation: To establish a defamation claim, the plaintiff must prove: False Statement: The statement must be factually incorrect. Defamatory Statement: The statement must harm the plaintiff's reputation. Publication: The statement must be communicated to a third party. Fault: The standard of fault varies; private individuals need to prove negligence, while public figures must prove actual malice. Harm: The statement must cause actual injury to the plaintiff's reputation or livelihood. Defenses to Defamation: Defendants can raise several defenses to avoid liability: Truth: An absolute defense; if the statement is true, it is not defamatory. Privilege: Protects certain statements made in specific contexts. Absolute Privilege: Applies to statements made during legislative, judicial, or certain executive proceedings. Qualified Privilege: Applies to statements made in good faith on matters of public interest or where there is a duty to communicate the information. Opinion: Statements of opinion are not considered defamatory because they cannot be proven true or false. Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the publication, they cannot claim defamation. Statute of Limitations: Defamation claims must be filed within a specific period after the statement is made. Public Figures and Privilege: Defamation law distinguishes between private individuals and public figures, applying different standards for each. Public Figures: Definition: Individuals who have achieved fame or notoriety or have injected themselves into public controversies. Higher Burden of Proof: Must prove actual malice. Rationale: Greater access to communication channels to counteract false statements and the public's interest in open debate. Private Individuals: Definition: Those who have not sought out public attention or influence. Lower Burden of Proof: Need only prove negligence. Rationale: More vulnerable to reputational harm and limited access to public rebuttal. Privileges: Absolute Privilege: Protects statements made in specific contexts regardless of their truth or intent. Qualified Privilege: Protects statements made in good faith on matters of public interest or where there is a duty to communicate the information. Case Illustrations: Public Figure: A well-known celebrity must prove actual malice to win a defamation lawsuit against a tabloid. Private Individual: A private school teacher needs to prove negligence to win a defamation case against a parent spreading false rumors. By examining the elements of defamation, defenses, and the differing standards for public figures and private individuals, this chapter provides a comprehensive understanding of defamation law's complexities and nuances. It balances the protection of reputations with the principles of free expression and public debate. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 5: Defamation. Chapter 5 delves into the complexities of defamation law, focusing on the legal distinctions between libel and slander, the elements necessary to establish a defamation claim, and the defenses available to those accused of defamation. Additionally, the chapter examines how defamation law treats public figures differently from private individuals and the various privileges that protect certain statements from defamation claims. Libel and Slander: Libel: Defamation in a fixed medium, such as written or published statements in newspapers, books, or online. Libel is considered more harmful due to its permanence and broader reach. Slander: Defamation through spoken words or gestures, typically considered less damaging because it is transient. Key Differences: Libel involves written statements and is presumed harmful, while slander involves spoken statements and often requires proof of actual harm or special damages. Elements of Defamation: To establish a defamation claim, the plaintiff must prove: False Statement: The statement must be factually incorrect. Defamatory Statement: The statement must harm the plaintiff's reputation. Publication: The statement must be communicated to a third party. Fault: The standard of fault varies; private individuals need to prove negligence, while public figures must prove actual malice. Harm: The statement must cause actual injury to the plaintiff's reputation or livelihood. Defenses to Defamation: Defendants can raise several defenses to avoid liability: Truth: An absolute defense; if the statement is true, it is not defamatory. Privilege: Protects certain statements made in specific contexts. Absolute Privilege: Applies to statements made during legislative, judicial, or certain executive proceedings. Qualified Privilege: Applies to statements made in good faith on matters of public interest or where there is a duty to communicate the information. Opinion: Statements of opinion are not considered defamatory because they cannot be proven true or false. Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the publication, they cannot claim defamation. Statute of Limitations: Defamation claims must be filed within a specific period after the statement is made. Public Figures and Privilege: Defamation law distinguishes between private individuals and public figures, applying different standards for each. Public Figures: Definition: Individuals who have achieved fame or notoriety or have injected themselves into public controversies. Higher Burden of Proof: Must prove actual malice. Rationale: Greater access to communication channels to counteract false statements and the public's interest in open debate. Private Individuals: Definition: Those who have not sought out public attention or influence. Lower Burden of Proof: Need only prove negligence. Rationale: More vulnerable to reputational harm and limited access to public rebuttal. Privileges: Absolute Privilege: Protects statements made in specific contexts regardless of their truth or intent. Qualified Privilege: Protects statements made in good faith on matters of public interest or where there is a duty to communicate the information. Case Illustrations: Public Figure: A well-known celebrity must prove actual malice to win a defamation lawsuit against a tabloid. Private Individual: A private school teacher needs to prove negligence to win a defamation case against a parent spreading false rumors. By examining the elements of defamation, defenses, and the differing standards for public figures and private individuals, this chapter provides a comprehensive understanding of defamation law's complexities and nuances. It balances the protection of reputations with the principles of free expression and public debate. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 4: Strict Liability. Chapter 4 covers the doctrine of strict liability, which holds individuals or entities liable for certain harmful activities regardless of fault or intent. This chapter focuses on three key areas where strict liability is commonly applied: Abnormally Dangerous Activities: Definition: Activities that pose inherent high risks and cannot be mitigated through reasonable care. Examples: Blasting with explosives, transporting hazardous materials. Criteria: High risk of harm, inability to eliminate risk, uncommon usage, inappropriateness of location, and community value. Outcome: Entities engaging in such activities are held strictly liable for any resulting harm. Product Liability: Definition: Legal responsibility of manufacturers, distributors, and sellers for injuries caused by defective products. Types of Defects: Manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn (marketing defects). Requirements: Defendant's role in the distribution chain, presence of a defect, causation linking the defect to the injury, and injury occurring during foreseeable use. Outcome: Those involved in the production and sale of defective products are held strictly liable for injuries caused. Animals: Definition: Liability for harm caused by animals, varying based on whether the animal is wild or domestic. Wild Animals: Owners are strictly liable for any harm caused, as these animals are inherently dangerous. Domestic Animals: Owners are liable if they knew or should have known of the animal's dangerous tendencies. Factors Considered: Species classification, owner's knowledge of dangerous propensities, and the environment and control measures. Outcome: Owners of wild animals and domestic animals with known dangerous tendencies are held strictly liable for harm caused by their animals. Understanding strict liability ensures that individuals and entities engaged in inherently dangerous activities, producing defective products, or keeping potentially dangerous animals are held accountable for any resulting harm. This doctrine promotes public safety, responsible behavior, and compensates victims without the need to prove negligence. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 4: Strict Liability. Chapter 4 covers the doctrine of strict liability, which holds individuals or entities liable for certain harmful activities regardless of fault or intent. This chapter focuses on three key areas where strict liability is commonly applied: Abnormally Dangerous Activities: Definition: Activities that pose inherent high risks and cannot be mitigated through reasonable care. Examples: Blasting with explosives, transporting hazardous materials. Criteria: High risk of harm, inability to eliminate risk, uncommon usage, inappropriateness of location, and community value. Outcome: Entities engaging in such activities are held strictly liable for any resulting harm. Product Liability: Definition: Legal responsibility of manufacturers, distributors, and sellers for injuries caused by defective products. Types of Defects: Manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn (marketing defects). Requirements: Defendant's role in the distribution chain, presence of a defect, causation linking the defect to the injury, and injury occurring during foreseeable use. Outcome: Those involved in the production and sale of defective products are held strictly liable for injuries caused. Animals: Definition: Liability for harm caused by animals, varying based on whether the animal is wild or domestic. Wild Animals: Owners are strictly liable for any harm caused, as these animals are inherently dangerous. Domestic Animals: Owners are liable if they knew or should have known of the animal's dangerous tendencies. Factors Considered: Species classification, owner's knowledge of dangerous propensities, and the environment and control measures. Outcome: Owners of wild animals and domestic animals with known dangerous tendencies are held strictly liable for harm caused by their animals. Understanding strict liability ensures that individuals and entities engaged in inherently dangerous activities, producing defective products, or keeping potentially dangerous animals are held accountable for any resulting harm. This doctrine promotes public safety, responsible behavior, and compensates victims without the need to prove negligence. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Is legal representation in the U.S. only for the rich and corporations? That's a question that we'll explore in this episode of Stanford Legal with guests David and Nora Freeman Engstrom, two leading authorities on access to justice and the legal profession. They'll explain the roots of the challenge, how unauthorized practice of law rules contribute to the problem, and how to address them. The Engstroms co-direct Stanford Law School's Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession, an academic center working to shape the future of legal services and access to the legal system. This episode delves into some alarming statistics, including the fact that in three-quarters of civil cases in state courts, at least one party is without a lawyer. This alone often leads to unjust outcomes in cases involving debt collection, evictions, family law, and other areas. And that is just part of the problem, as the Engstroms explain.   Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Nora Freeman Engstrom >>> Stanford Law School PageDavid Freeman Engstrom >>> Stanford Law School PageChapter 1: The Access to Justice Crisis in the U.S.(00:00:00) Pam Karlan introduces the episode, discussing the work of David and Nora Freeman Engstrom at Stanford Law School's Deborah Rhode Center on the Legal Profession. This section provides an overview of the access to justice crisis, highlighting the high percentage of cases where individuals lack legal representation and a look at the types of cases predominantly at issue, including debt collection, evictions, mortgage foreclosures, and family law cases.Chapter 2: Understanding the Consequences and Causes of Legal Inaccessibility(00:7:06)  David and Nora Freeman Engstrom explore the broader implications of the lack of legal representation, including the cascade of related legal and financial issues that arise from initial problems like wage garnishment and eviction. They also touch on the hidden legal issues that never make it to court due to individuals' inability to seek legal help.Chapter 3: Exploring Solutions and Technological Impacts on Access to Justice(00:10:07) David and Nora Freeman Engstrom  delve into potential solutions to the access to justice crisis, including the role of technology in both exacerbating and potentially alleviating the problem. They discuss the efficiency of technological tools used by the debt collection industry and the implications for legal access.Chapter 4: The Technology Asymmetry in Debt Collection(00:14:19 )  Pam Karlan and David Freeman Engstrom discuss how debt collectors use automation to exploit legal processes against unrepresented individuals. They highlight the stark disparity between technological access for debt collectors and individual defendants. Engstrom points out the restrictive rules that limit software-driven legal services, exacerbating the access to justice crisis.Chapter 5: The Historical Context and Current Restrictions on Legal Services(00:15:55)  Nora Freeman Engstrom delves into the history of legal service restrictions in the U.S., contrasting it with medical professions. She introduces her research on auto clubs and their provision of legal services in the early 20th century, showing how organized bar associations shut down these alternatives to preserve their monopoly.Chapter 6: Modern Innovations and Future Prospects in Legal Services(00:24:13)  The host and guests discuss recent efforts to relax unauthorized practice of law rules in states like Utah and Arizona. They explore innovative legal service models emerging from these reforms, including tiered services and AI-driven solutions, and their potential to democratize access to legal assistance. The discussion highlights how entities like LegalZoom are now able to hire lawyers and provide more comprehensive services. They also touch on the potential of generative AI to bridge the gap between legal jargon and plain language, making legal assistance more accessible to the public. The chapter concludes with reflections on the promise and challenges of these technological advancements.

114

This is a rebroadcast of a panel discussion from an event we co-hosted on May 15, 2024, with the Manhattan Institute and the Federalist Society. The panelists discuss whether state tort law is an appropriate tool for addressing climate change and the petition for certiorari in Sunoco LP, et al. v. City and County of Honolulu. […]

This is a rebroadcast of a panel discussion from an event we co-hosted on May 15, 2024, with the Manhattan Institute and the Federalist Society. The panelists discuss whether state tort law is an appropriate tool for addressing climate change and the petition for certiorari in Sunoco LP, et al. v. City and County of Honolulu.Featured Speakers:Jonathan Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of LawJames Copland, Senior Fellow and Director of Legal Policy, Manhattan InstituteDonald Kochan, Antonin Scalia Law SchoolJennifer Mascott, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

How should the law govern AI? Those concerned about existential risks often push either for bans or for regulations meant to ensure that AI is developed safely - but another approach is possible. In this episode, Gabriel Weil talks about his proposal to modify tort law to enable people to sue AI companies for disasters that are "nearly catastrophic". Patreon: patreon.com/axrpodcast Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/axrpodcast   Topics we discuss, and timestamps: 0:00:35 - The basic idea 0:20:36 - Tort law vs regulation 0:29:10 - Weil's proposal vs Hanson's proposal 0:37:00 - Tort law vs Pigouvian taxation 0:41:16 - Does disagreement on AI risk make this proposal less effective? 0:49:53 - Warning shots - their prevalence and character 0:59:17 - Feasibility of big changes to liability law 1:29:17 - Interactions with other areas of law 1:38:59 - How Gabriel encountered the AI x-risk field 1:42:41 - AI x-risk and the legal field 1:47:44 - Technical research to help with this proposal 1:50:47 - Decisions this proposal could influence 1:55:34 - Following Gabriel's research   The transcript: axrp.net/episode/2024/04/17/episode-28-tort-law-for-ai-risk-gabriel-weil.html   Links for Gabriel:  - SSRN page: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1648032  - Twitter/X account: twitter.com/gabriel_weil   Tort Law as a Tool for Mitigating Catastrophic Risk from Artificial Intelligence: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4694006   Other links:  - Foom liability: overcomingbias.com/p/foom-liability  - Punitive Damages: An Economic Analysis: law.harvard.edu/faculty/shavell/pdf/111_Harvard_Law_Rev_869.pdf  - Efficiency, Fairness, and the Externalization of Reasonable Risks: The Problem With the Learned Hand Formula: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4466197  - Tort Law Can Play an Important Role in Mitigating AI Risk: forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/epKBmiyLpZWWFEYDb/tort-law-can-play-an-important-role-in-mitigating-ai-risk  - How Technical AI Safety Researchers Can Help Implement Punitive Damages to Mitigate Catastrophic AI Risk: forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/yWKaBdBygecE42hFZ/how-technical-ai-safety-researchers-can-help-implement  - Can the courts save us from dangerous AI? [Vox]: vox.com/future-perfect/2024/2/7/24062374/ai-openai-anthropic-deepmind-legal-liability-gabriel-weil   Episode art by Hamish Doodles: hamishdoodles.com

Not a lot of lawyers can say that they helped create a whole new legal field, but William Shernoff can. On this week's episode, Ralph welcomes trailblazing attorney William Shernoff to discuss predatory insurance practices, and how consumers can protect themselves. This special episode was co-presented by The American Museum of Tort Law, and was recorded in front of a live virtual audience.William Shernoff is the founding partner of Shernoff Bidart Echeverria, a law firm specializing in insurance bad faith litigation. A longtime consumer advocate, he has made a career of representing insurance consumers in their cases against insurance companies. Often called the “father” of bad faith insurance law, in 1979, Mr. Shernoff persuaded the California Supreme Court to establish new case law that permits plaintiffs to sue insurance companies for bad faith seeking both compensatory and punitive damages when they unreasonably handle a policyholder's claim (Egan v. Mutual of Omaha).A frequent lecturer and writer, Mr. Shernoff co-authored the legal textbook, Insurance Bad Faith Litigation, which has become the field's definitive treatise, as well as How to Make Insurance Companies Pay Your Claims . . . . And What To Do If They Don't, Fight Back and Win – And How To Make Your HMO Pay Up, and Payment Refused. Under bad faith law in California and in most states, you not only could get the benefits you deserve under the insurance policy—whether it be life insurance or disability insurance or health insurance. But you can also get damages over and above the policy limits, which are emotional distress damages…Not only can you get the emotional distress damages, but any aggravation of your medical condition. And then punitive damages are on top of that. And attorney's fees are on top of that. So all of these damages are coming from insurance bad faith if the insurance bad faith law applies. And punitive damages are designed to punish the insurance company so that they correct their wrongful conduct in the future, and deter them from unfair claims practices. William ShernoffMost people, if they get a letter from an insurance company—which they consider to be an authoritative source— and the insurance company says, “Your claim is denied because…” and then they cite all kinds of fine print in the insurance policy, most people accept that and don't do anything. They don't see a lawyer. They just accept what their insurance company told them because it sounded quite official to them.William ShernoffInsurance regulation is state-controlled. The federal government has been blocked for decades and the Congress has imposed itself on the federal Federal Trade Commission and said that they can't even investigate the insurance companies without being allowed to by a committee in the House or the Senate that has jurisdiction over such matters. So the privileges of the insurance lobby are quite extraordinary even by comparison with other corporate lobbies.Ralph Nader More people should know about bad-faith cases rights—and use them. And not take whatever is dealt to them by insurance companies—denials, rescission of insurance policies, refusing to renew, other delays, or other crazy obstructions. Learn about your rights.Ralph Nader In Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeSantisNews 3/27/241. CNN reports the United Nations Security Council has passed a Gaza ceasefire resolution. The resolution itself is imperfect, calling only for a ceasefire during the month of Ramadan, but this watered down language paved the way for the United States to allow the resolution to pass. The U.S. has vetoed every previous ceasefire resolution before the Security Council and disputes the extent to which this resolution is legally binding. For its part, Israel's Foreign Minister stated unequivocally that Israel “will not cease fire,” per CNN.2. Following the passage of the Security Council resolution, Prime Minister Netanyahu canceled a planned high-level Israeli delegation visit to Washington, per CNBC. The planned visit, which would have included an address to Congress, was staring down scathing criticism from Congressional Progressives. Axios reports Representative Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian member of Congress and the most outspoken on the Israeli campaign of terror, said “[Netanyahu] shouldn't come to Congress, he should be sent to the Hague.”3. In another sign of the rift between the Biden Administration and Netanyahu, Haaretz reports that Congressional Democrats are sending formal warnings to the administration stating that Israel is not in compliance with U.S. laws governing the dispensation of military aid.  Joaquin Castro, a Democrat from Texas, said “Congress and [the] White House need to make clear to Israel that we will enforce US law to protect Palestinian children from starvation in Gaza.”4. Professor Jana Silverman, co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America International Committee, reports “After a totally last-minute, ad-hoc, no-budget campaign, 13.2% of voters in the Democrats Abroad primary said no to genocide in Gaza and voted Uncommitted!” This impressive performance signals that the Uncommitted electoral protest movement isn't going anywhere. The next major test for the movement will be Pennsylvania, where Uncommitted PA is aiming for at least 40,000 votes in the state's April primary, per Lancaster Online.5. In an open letter, over 100 prominent American Jews condemned AIPAC. The letter reads “We are Jewish Americans who have…come together to highlight and oppose the unprecedented and damaging role of AIPAC…in U.S. elections, especially within Democratic Party primaries. We recognize the purpose of AIPAC's interventions in electoral politics is to defeat any critics of Israeli Government policy and to support candidates who vow unwavering loyalty to Israel, thereby ensuring the United States' continuing support for all that Israel does, regardless of its violence and illegality.” Signatories include the Ralph Nader Radio Hour's own Alan Minsky, celebrated academic Judith Butler, Postal Workers Union president Mark Dimondstein, Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's, and the actor Wallace Shawn among many others. The full letter is available at USJewsOpposingAipac.org.6. Oscar winning director Jonathan Glazer continues to be the target of phony outrage by pro-Israel groups like the Anti-Defamation League. Coming to the defense of the filmmaker however are other prominent Jewish organizations, like Jewish Voice for Peace and the Auschwitz Memorial, whose director said “In his Oscar acceptance speech, Jonathan Glazer issued a universal moral warning against dehumanization,” per the Guardian. Decorated Jewish playwright Tony Kushner, a signatory on the anti-AIPAC letter, told Haaretz “There's been a concerted attempt by right wing American Jews to sort of sell the idea that American college campuses are awash with virulent antisemites – professors and students and so on. And the Jewish students are walking these campuses in terror for their lives. I think this is nonsense. I see no evidence of it.”7. Both the Gannett and McClatchy newspaper companies have announced they will no longer use AP journalism in their publications, AP reports. This is yet another indication of the dire financial straits the news business finds itself in. The AP notes “Gannett's workforce shrank 47% between 2020 and 2023 because of layoffs and attrition…The company also hasn't earned a full-year profit since 2018… Since then, it has lost $1.03 billion.”8. In Honduras, the Intercept reports “an almost-impossible-to-believe scenario: A group of libertarian investors teamed up with a former Honduran government — which was tied at the hip with narco-traffickers and came to power after a U.S.-backed military coup — in order to implement the world's most radical libertarian policy, which turned over significant portions of the country to those investors through so-called special economic zones. The Honduran public, in a backlash, ousted the narco-backed regime, and the new government repealed the libertarian legislation. The crypto investors are now using the World Bank to force Honduras to honor the narco-government's policies.” While this story has certain unique angles – crypto and narco-trafficking chief among them – the key element is actually quite familiar: international ‘free trade' regimes superseding sovereign governments. We offer Honduras solidarity against these contemporary crypto-filibusters.9. On March 11th, Congressmen Jimmy Gomez and Joaquin Castro sent a letter to the heads of the CIA and FBI demanding disclosures of surveillance efforts on Latino civil rights leaders during the 1960s and ‘70s, citing the well-documented pattern of surveillance on Black civil rights leaders during that period and the wealth of circumstantial evidence indicating that these organs of national security did the same toward prominent Latino figures such as Cesar Chavez. The following day, in a hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Castro pressed CIA Director Bill Burns on the matter, and Burns committed to working with his office to bring these activities to light. We hope that further transparency will beget further transparency and that some day the complete account of the CIA and FBI's domestic surveillance programs will be a matter of public record.10. Finally, in Mississippi, CBS reports that authorities have successfully convicted all six members of a police gang calling themselves the “Goon Squad.” These six white officers plead guilty to “breaking into a home without a warrant and torturing two Black men…The assault involved beatings, the repeated use of stun guns and assaults with a sex toy before one of the victims was shot in the mouth in a mock execution.” Lawyers representing the criminal cops allege that “their clients became ensnared in a culture of corruption that was not only permitted, but encouraged by leaders within the sheriff's office.” If true, then a federal investigation – and likely more than a few exonerations of individuals victimized by this “Goon Squad” – are in order. Justice demands it.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

In conjunction with the American Museum of Tort Law, we conduct another live Zoom recording where Ralph welcomes legendary trial lawyer Shanin Spector to discuss the constitutional right of wrongfully injured people to have their day in court and the corporate forces that are trying to limit this most basic of American principles. Then, Ralph and Mr. Spector take questions from our live audience.

In conjunction with the American Museum of Tort Law, we conduct another live Zoom recording where Ralph welcomes legendary trial lawyer Shanin Spector to discuss the constitutional right of wrongfully injured people to have their day in court and the corporate forces that are trying to limit this most basic of American principles. Then, Ralph and Mr. Spector take questions from our live audience.Shanin Specter is a founding partner of Kline & Specter, one of the leading catastrophic injury firms in the United States. Beyond winning substantial monetary compensation for his clients, many of Shanin's cases have prompted beneficial societal changes. He has also taught law for many years and this academic year is teaching tort and trial courses at UC Law SF, Drexel Kline and Stanford Law Schools.Last week, I found myself in Washington DC at the Federalist Society debating the resolution that America should abolish the right of trial by jury, which is being advocated by an otherwise distinguished professor at George Washington University School of Law, Professor [Renée Lettow] Lerner… You don't have to scratch the surface of her argument very much to see that it is based upon the statistics of the American Tort Reform Association and the like. It's essentially a Trojan horse for the Fortune 500.Shanin SpecterWhy don't you describe this assault on the tort system by lobbyists who don't want to argue their case in court— that's too open, too full of cross-examination, too fair in terms of the procedures. They want to lobby lawmakers in states all over the country so the lawmakers, in effect, enact laws that tie the hands of juries and judges— the only people who actually see, hear, and evaluate the cases in the courtroom.Ralph NaderIn Case You Haven't Heard1. The FTC has issued a statement regarding the proposed merger between CalPortland & Martin Marietta. Chair Lina Khan tweeted that this deal “would've resulted in a single firm owning half of all cement plants serving Southern California, enabling the firm to hike prices.” Following an FTC investigation, the firms have abandoned the deal.2. AP reports that Colorado has become the first state to pass “Right to Repair” legislation, which “compels manufacturers to provide the necessary manuals, tools, parts and software,” to “ensure farmers can fix their own tractors and combines.” This idea has drawn support from left and right factions including at the national level. In a similar move regarding home repairs, Senator John Fetterman is pushing to expand Pennsylvania's "Whole Home Repair" program – which “helps Pennsylvanians with needed repairs and eliminate[s] blight” – to the nation.3. Former U.S.-backed Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó has been ejected from Colombia after attempting to “gatecrash” a summit on the future of the Bolivarian republic, the Guardian reports. Guaidó has fallen out of favor among Venezuelan dissidents and, while some western nations still recognize him on paper as Venezuela's president – despite never winning such an election – many have quietly reengaged with the Maduro government to negotiate for oil. The Guardian added that Mr. Guaidó has now relocated to Miami.4. Slate reports that automakers are finally beginning to backpedal on digital displays in cars. David Zipper writes “The touch screen pullback is the result of consumer backlash, not the enactment of overdue regulations or an awakening of corporate responsibility. Many drivers want buttons, not screens, and they've given carmakers an earful about it. Auto executives have long brushed aside safety concerns about their complex displays—and all signs suggest they would have happily kept doing so. But their customers are revolting, which has forced them to pay attention.” Zipper goes on to pin the blame for the proliferation of these expensive and unpopular displays on one culprit: Elon Musk's Tesla.5. From the Tampa Bay Times: State legislators in Florida are leading a crusade to shred local tenants rights laws, which set standards regarding rent increases, applications and evictions. The recently-passed HB 1417 and its companion SB 1586 would strip away these protections. Rep. Tiffany Esposito, of Fort Myers, who sponsored the House bill, is quoted saying “This bill protects tenants, this bill protects property owners and this bill protects capitalism.” Rep. Angie Nixon of Jacksonville responded “This bill is designed to help corporate landlords at the expense of tenants, many of which are already struggling to stay in their homes.”6. Ben & Jerry's announced that it has reached an agreement with workers at its flagship store in Burlington, Vermont on rules to ensure a fair union election, after workers announced last week that they are seeking to unionize, per the New York Times. “The agreement is likely to pave the way for the store to become the only unionized Ben & Jerry's location in the United States. All of the nearly 40 workers eligible to join a union at the store have indicated their support for doing so.”7. The Hill reports that a War Powers Resolution to pull U.S. troops out of Somalia, introduced by Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, has been defeated. The resolution garnered the support of 47 Republicans and 56 Democrats but failed by a margin of 103-321.8.  Keeping an eye on out of control cops, the LA Times reports that during a "reverse-buy" sting operation, undercover deputies with the Riverside sheriff sold 60 pounds of meth to a narcotics trafficker. According to the author Noah Goldberg, the dealer then got in a car and fled, resulting in 60 additional pounds of meth being introduced into the community. And in West Virginia, WTRF reports that “42 women, including 10 minors, plan to file lawsuits against West Virginia State Police for [installing] hidden cameras in junior troopers locker rooms…[engaging in] rampant sexual misconduct,” and admitting to destroying evidence in criminal investigations.  9. From Common Dreams: Reps. AOC and Ro Khanna, along with Senator Ed Markey, have reintroduced the Green New Deal. Along with the resolution, which is unlikely to move in the current Congress, the sponsors released “a guide for cities, states, tribes, nonprofits, and individuals about how to help bring the Green New Deal to life."10. From the Economic Policy Institute: April 28th marked “Workers Memorial Day, the date the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) took effect in 1971. Signed in 1970, the OSH Act has made a tremendous difference, and, after more than 50 years, over 668,000 workers can say their lives have been saved by its passage… [yet] In 2022, 343 workers died each day on average from hazardous working conditions, and last year's fatality data show especially troubling trends: The rate of death on the job for Black workers rose to its highest number in more than a decade, and fatality rates for Latino workers have increased 13% in the past decade…grim as these…numbers are, the reality is likely far worse. Government Accountability Office…reports show that a majority of employers fail to report workplace injuries due to [OSHA]'s limited resources and procedures. Official statistics also do not include the untold numbers of worker deaths linked to preventable workplace coronavirus exposure. In fact, the pandemic revealed serious limitations of the OSH Act and its enforcement in an era of eroded worker power and vast economic inequality.” Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

In a live Zoom event in conjunction with the American Museum of Tort Law, Ralph welcomes safety expert, Russell Kendzior, who runs the National Floor Safety Institute to discuss where, why and how slip-and-falls happen, how to prevent them, the legitimacy of slip-and-fall lawsuits, and the role of the Consumer Product Safety Commission for a phenomenon that for older adults every year causes over 36,000 deaths and $50 billion in medical costs.