Podcasts about tort law

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

Summary of Chapter 3: Negligence Chapter 3 of the Tort Law Hornbook explores the fundamental concept of negligence, which occurs when an individual fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another. The chapter is structured around five key elements: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, damages, and defenses to negligence. Duty of Care: Definition: A legal obligation to act with reasonable care to avoid causing harm. Establishing Duty: Factors include the reasonable person standard, foreseeability of harm, special relationships, and statutory duties. Example: Drivers have a duty to follow traffic laws to prevent accidents. Breach of Duty: Definition: Occurs when an individual fails to meet the standard of care required under the circumstances. Determining Breach: Involves assessing the reasonableness of the defendant's actions, customary practices, and the balance of risk and burden using the Hand Formula. Example: A driver running a red light breaches the duty of care owed to other road users. Causation: Definition: Links the breach of duty to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Factual Causation: The "but-for" test and substantial factor test establish direct links between actions and harm. Legal Causation: Ensures the harm is a foreseeable and direct result of the breach, within the scope of risks. Example: A pedestrian hit by a car due to the driver's negligence establishes causation through the "but-for" test. Damages: Definition: Compensation awarded to the plaintiff to restore them to their pre-injury position. Types of Damages: Compensatory Damages: Cover economic (e.g., medical expenses, lost wages) and non-economic losses (e.g., pain and suffering). Punitive Damages: Aim to punish egregious conduct and deter future misconduct. Example: A plaintiff injured in a car accident may receive compensation for medical bills and pain and suffering. Defenses to Negligence: Contributory Negligence: The plaintiff's own negligence may bar recovery. Comparative Negligence: Fault is apportioned between parties, reducing the plaintiff's recovery by their percentage of fault. Assumption of Risk: The plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risk of harm. Consent: The plaintiff agrees to the defendant's conduct, negating negligence. Example: A jaywalking pedestrian hit by a car may have their recovery reduced under comparative negligence. Understanding these elements and defenses is crucial for analyzing and adjudicating negligence claims, ensuring that parties are fairly held accountable for their actions. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 3: Negligence Chapter 3 of the Tort Law Hornbook explores the fundamental concept of negligence, which occurs when an individual fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another. The chapter is structured around five key elements: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, damages, and defenses to negligence. Duty of Care: Definition: A legal obligation to act with reasonable care to avoid causing harm. Establishing Duty: Factors include the reasonable person standard, foreseeability of harm, special relationships, and statutory duties. Example: Drivers have a duty to follow traffic laws to prevent accidents. Breach of Duty: Definition: Occurs when an individual fails to meet the standard of care required under the circumstances. Determining Breach: Involves assessing the reasonableness of the defendant's actions, customary practices, and the balance of risk and burden using the Hand Formula. Example: A driver running a red light breaches the duty of care owed to other road users. Causation: Definition: Links the breach of duty to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Factual Causation: The "but-for" test and substantial factor test establish direct links between actions and harm. Legal Causation: Ensures the harm is a foreseeable and direct result of the breach, within the scope of risks. Example: A pedestrian hit by a car due to the driver's negligence establishes causation through the "but-for" test. Damages: Definition: Compensation awarded to the plaintiff to restore them to their pre-injury position. Types of Damages: Example: A plaintiff injured in a car accident may receive compensation for medical bills and pain and suffering. Defenses to Negligence: Contributory Negligence: The plaintiff's own negligence may bar recovery. Comparative Negligence: Fault is apportioned between parties, reducing the plaintiff's recovery by their percentage of fault. Assumption of Risk: The plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risk of harm. Consent: The plaintiff agrees to the defendant's conduct, negating negligence. Example: A jaywalking pedestrian hit by a car may have their recovery reduced under comparative negligence. Understanding these elements and defenses is crucial for analyzing and adjudicating negligence claims, ensuring that parties are fairly held accountable for their actions. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Chapter 1: Introduction to Tort Law Definition and Purpose of Tort Law Tort law is a branch of civil law that deals with wrongs or injuries caused by one party to another. The primary purpose of tort law is to provide remedies for individuals who have suffered harm due to the actions or omissions of others. Unlike criminal law, which is concerned with punishing offenders and maintaining public order, tort law is primarily focused on compensating victims and restoring them to the position they were in before the tortious act occurred. At its core, tort law addresses a wide range of wrongful conduct, including intentional acts, negligence, and strict liability offenses. It serves several key functions in society: Compensation: Tort law provides a mechanism for victims to receive compensation for their losses, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Deterrence: By holding individuals and entities accountable for their actions, tort law serves as a deterrent against harmful behavior. Justice: Tort law promotes fairness by ensuring that those who suffer harm due to the wrongful conduct of others have a legal avenue for redress. Social Stability: By providing a peaceful means of resolving disputes, tort law contributes to social stability and the orderly functioning of society. Historical Background and Development The origins of tort law can be traced back to ancient civilizations, where early forms of legal systems provided remedies for personal injuries and property damage. In ancient Rome, for example, the concept of "delict" was used to describe wrongful acts that required compensation. Similarly, early English common law recognized various forms of personal and property wrongs, laying the foundation for modern tort law. The development of tort law has been shaped by centuries of judicial decisions and legislative enactments. In the medieval period, English courts began to categorize tortious conduct into distinct causes of action, such as trespass, nuisance, and defamation. Over time, these categories expanded and evolved to address new types of harm and changing societal needs. In the modern era, tort law has continued to adapt to new challenges and complexities. The rise of industrialization and technological advancements has introduced new risks and liabilities, prompting courts and legislatures to develop doctrines such as product liability and environmental torts. Today, tort law remains a dynamic and evolving field, constantly responding to emerging issues and societal developments. Key Principles and Objectives Tort law is governed by several key principles that guide its application and interpretation. Understanding these principles is essential for grasping the fundamental nature of tort law: Fault and Liability: Tort law often revolves around the concept of fault, where a party's conduct is deemed wrongful or negligent. However, certain torts, such as strict liability offenses, impose liability without regard to fault. Causation and Harm: To succeed in a tort claim, a plaintiff must typically prove that the defendant's conduct caused the harm suffered. This involves establishing both factual causation (the defendant's actions led to the harm) and legal causation (the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the actions). Remedies and Damages: Tort law provides various remedies to compensate victims, including compensatory damages (to cover actual losses) and punitive damages (to punish particularly egregious conduct). In some cases, equitable remedies, such as injunctions, may also be available. Defenses and Immunities: Defendants in tort cases may raise various defenses, such as consent, self-defense, or statutory immunities, to avoid or reduce liability. The primary objectives of tort law are to provide compensation to victims, deter wrongful conduct, and promote justice. These objectives are achieved through the careful balancing of competing interests, including the rights of individual --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Introduction to Torts Definition and Purpose Definition of a Tort Purpose of Tort Law (compensation, deterrence, justice) Types of Torts Intentional Torts Assault and Battery Elements of Assault (intent, apprehension, imminent harm) Elements of Battery (intent, harmful or offensive contact) False Imprisonment Elements (intent, confinement, awareness or harm) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) Elements (intent or recklessness, extreme and outrageous conduct, causation, severe emotional distress) Trespass to Land Elements (intent, unauthorized entry, property) Trespass to Chattels and Conversion Trespass to Chattels (intent, interference, damage) Conversion (intent, substantial interference, ownership) Negligence Elements of Negligence Duty of Care Breach of Duty Causation (actual cause, proximate cause) Damages Defenses to Negligence Contributory Negligence Comparative Negligence Assumption of Risk Strict Liability Abnormally Dangerous Activities Definition and examples (explosives, hazardous materials) Animals Wild Animals (strict liability) Domestic Animals (liability based on known dangerous propensities) Product Liability Elements (defect, causation, damages) Types of Defects (manufacturing, design, warning) Defenses to Torts Defenses to Intentional Torts Consent Self-Defense Defense of Others Defense of Property Necessity (public and private) Defenses to Negligence Contributory Negligence Comparative Negligence (pure and modified) Assumption of Risk Damages in Tort Law Compensatory Damages Economic Damages (medical expenses, lost wages) Non-Economic Damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress) Punitive Damages Purpose and standards for awarding Factors considered (malicious, willful, or reckless conduct) Special Tort Doctrines Vicarious Liability Employer liability for employee actions (respondeat superior) Independent contractors Joint and Several Liability Definition and application Contribution and indemnity among tortfeasors Statutes of Limitations and Repose Definition and differences Application in tort cases --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message 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

David Zaruk, as The Risk-Monger, challenges confirmation bias. Fighting activist zealots. Fighting for farmers. Fighting cardiovascular disease and arthritis. 00:00 Introduction to David Zarek's Perspectives 00:22 Unveiling the La Jolla Playbook: The Strategy of Tobacconizing Industries 03:15 The Evolution of Activist Science and Legal Strategies 07:41 The Role of Foundations in Shaping Public Opinion and Policy 09:20 The Intricacies of Foundation Capitalism and Its Impact 11:49 Exploring the Complex Web of Lawsuits, Foundations, and Media Influence 15:03 The Shift in Journalism: From Traditional Media to Foundation-Funded News 25:27 The New Philanthropy: Tech Billionaires and Their Foundations 31:45 The Influence of Crypto Wealth on Political Campaigns 32:30 The Controversial Impact of Funded Films on Public Opinion 33:19 Unveiling the Hidden Funders Behind Influential Media 34:30 The Complex Web of Academic and Media Funding 35:31 Exploring the Power of Legal Funding in Shaping Public Policy 36:15 The Role of New Media in Breaking Through the Noise 37:29 The Potential of Tort Law to Address Public Harm 37:59 Debunking Myths Around Organic Farming and Pesticides 40:40 Challenging the Climate Change Narrative and Seeking Solutions 48:57 The Global Influence of ESG and Woke Culture 52:25 Concluding Thoughts on the Future of Policy and Public Awareness https://twitter.com/zaruk https://risk-monger.com/ https://www.thefirebreak.org/ YouTube: https://youtube.com/@therisk-mongertv5230 ========= AI summaries of all of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries About Tom Nelson: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL89cj_OtPeenLkWMmdwcT8Dt0DGMb8RGR Twitter: https://twitter.com/TomANelson Substack: https://tomn.substack.com/ About Tom: https://tomn.substack.com/about

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

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Tort Law Can Play an Important Role in Mitigating AI Risk, published by Gabriel Weil on February 13, 2024 on LessWrong. TLDR: Legal liability could substantially mitigate AI risk, but current law falls short in two key ways: (1) it requires provable negligence, and (2) it greatly limits the availability of punitive damages. Applying strict liability (a form of liability that does not require provable negligence) and expanding the availability and flexibility of punitive damages is feasible, but will require action by courts or legislatures. Legislatures should also consider acting in advance to create a clear ex ante expectation of liability and imposing liability insurance requirements for the training and deployment of advanced AI systems. The following post is a summary of a law review article. Here is the full draft paper. Dylan Matthews also did an excellent write-up of the core proposal for Vox's Future Perfect vertical. AI alignment is primarily a technical problem that will require technical solutions. But it is also a policy problem. Training and deploying advanced AI systems whose properties are difficult to control or predict generates risks of harm to third parties. In economists' parlance, these risks are negative externalities and constitute a market failure. Absent a policy response, products and services that generate such negative externalities tend to be overproduced. In theory, tort liability should work pretty well to internalize these externalities, by forcing the companies that train and deploy AI systems to pay for the harm they cause. Unlike the sort of diffuse and hard-to-trace climate change externalities associated with greenhouse gas emissions, many AI harms are likely to be traceable to a specific system trained and deployed by specific people or companies. Unfortunately, there are two significant barriers to using tort liability to internalize AI risk. First, under existing doctrine, plaintiffs harmed by AI systems would have to prove that the companies that trained or deployed the system failed to exercise reasonable care. This is likely to be extremely difficult to prove since it would require the plaintiff to identify some reasonable course of action that would have prevented the injury. Importantly, under current law, simply not building or deploying the AI systems does not qualify as such a reasonable precaution. Second, under plausible assumptions, most of the expected harm caused by AI systems is likely to come in scenarios where enforcing a damages award is not practically feasible. Obviously, no lawsuit can be brought after human extinction or enslavement by misaligned AI. But even in much less extreme catastrophes where humans remain alive and in control with a functioning legal system, the harm may simply be so large in financial terms that it would bankrupt the companies responsible and no plausible insurance policy could cover the damages. This means that even if AI companies are compelled to pay damages that fully compensate the people injured by their systems in all cases where doing so is feasible, this will fall well short of internalizing the risks generated by their activities. Accordingly, these companies would still have incentives to take on too much risk in their AI training and deployment decisions. Fortunately, there are legal tools available to overcome these two challenges. The hurdle of proving a breach of the duty of reasonable care can be circumvented by applying strict liability, meaning liability absent provable negligence, to a class of AI harms. There is some precedent for applying strict liability in this context in the form of the abnormally dangerous activities doctrine. Under this doctrine, people who engage in uncommon activities that "create a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical har...

"Look Everybody, a butthole."Football coaches, a racial explanation, redneck swimmers, guaranteed that Dan has no idea what Tort Law is, and someone takes out a human being and thinks they are an animal.  Redneck OceanKing of TortsWas it a Woman? You can listen to us on Spotify or wherever you get your Podcasts. Please rate and review. Email us at idiotseducated@gmail.com and follow us on X to the Z @educationidiots

Understanding Causation. Causation is the linchpin that connects a defendant's actions to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. It seeks to answer the fundamental question: Did the defendant's conduct cause the harm? The exploration of causation involves two key components: cause-in-fact and proximate cause. Cause-in-Fact (Actual Cause). Cause-in-fact, also known as actual cause, examines whether the defendant's actions were the direct cause of the harm. The "but for" test is commonly used to determine cause-in-fact. In other words, would the harm have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions? Example: In a car accident case, if Driver A runs a red light and collides with Driver B's car, the cause-in-fact is established by asking whether the accident would have occurred "but for" Driver A running the red light. Proximate Cause (Legal Cause). Proximate cause focuses on the foreseeability of the harm. It asks whether the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions. Proximate cause sets limits on liability, ensuring that defendants are not held responsible for incredibly remote or unforeseeable consequences of their conduct. Example: If a person throws a ball in a crowded area and it unexpectedly causes someone to trip and fall, the question is whether the tripping and falling were foreseeable consequences of throwing the ball. Challenges in Causation. Causation can present challenges in various scenarios: Concurrent Causes: In cases where multiple factors or parties contribute to the harm, determining which party's actions were the actual cause can be complex. Intervening Causes: Intervening causes are unforeseeable events or actions that occur after the defendant's conduct but before the harm. They can break the chain of causation. Multiple Plaintiffs: In cases involving multiple plaintiffs, it may be challenging to establish causation for each plaintiff, especially if their injuries resulted from different aspects of the defendant's actions. Case Example: Slip and Fall in a Store. Imagine a scenario where a person slips and falls in a store, suffering injuries. The store's negligence is a potential cause of the injuries. However, if it is discovered that the person was also texting on their phone while walking, their distraction may be considered an intervening cause, breaking the chain of causation. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Understanding Defenses in Tort Law. Defenses in tort cases are legal strategies and arguments used by defendants to counter claims brought against them. These defenses can vary based on the type of tort involved, the circumstances of the case, and the applicable legal principles. Common Defenses in Tort Law. Let's explore some common defenses used in tort cases: Contributory Negligence: This defense argues that the plaintiff's own negligence or carelessness contributed to their injuries. In jurisdictions that follow contributory negligence, if the plaintiff is found even slightly negligent, they may be barred from recovering any damages. Example: In a car accident case, the defendant might argue that the plaintiff was also distracted while driving, contributing to the collision. Comparative Negligence: In jurisdictions that adopt comparative negligence, the defendant argues that the plaintiff's negligence contributed to their injuries. However, under comparative negligence, the plaintiff's recovery is reduced in proportion to their degree of fault, rather than being completely barred. Example: In a slip and fall case, the defendant might argue that the plaintiff was not paying attention to warning signs, contributing to the fall. Assumption of Risk: This defense asserts that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risks associated with the activity that led to their injuries. Example: In a sporting event, the defendant might argue that the plaintiff willingly participated and accepted the risks of injury. Statute of Limitations: This defense asserts that the plaintiff's claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Statutes of limitations set a time limit for bringing legal action, and once that time has passed, the plaintiff cannot pursue a claim. Example: If a plaintiff tries to bring a lawsuit for a car accident that happened five years ago, the defendant might raise the defense of the statute of limitations. Immunity: Immunity can arise from specific circumstances. For example, certain government entities may enjoy immunity from certain tort claims, while charitable organizations may have immunity under certain conditions. Example: A government agency might assert immunity in a case involving alleged negligence in a public service. Affirmative Defenses. In addition to the common defenses mentioned earlier, some tort claims involve affirmative defenses, which require the defendant to present evidence supporting their defense. Affirmative defenses can include: Self-Defense: When a person reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of harm, they have the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves. This defense can be asserted in cases involving assault or battery. Example: In a case where someone is accused of assault, they might argue that they acted in self-defense because they believed they were in danger. Defense of Others: Similar to self-defense, a person may use reasonable force to protect another person who is in imminent danger. Example: If someone intervenes in a fight to protect a friend, they might raise the defense of defense of others. Defense of Property: Individuals have the right to use reasonable force to protect their property from being invaded or stolen. However, this force must be proportionate to the threat. Example: If someone uses force to prevent a trespasser from stealing their car, they might assert the defense of defense of property. Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the defendant's actions, knowing the risks involved, it can serve as a complete defense. Example: In a case where someone is injured during a recreational activity, the defendant might argue that the plaintiff consented to the risks inherent in the activity. Superseding Cause: This defense asserts that an unforeseeable event or action occurred after the defendant's conduct but before the harm, and this event was the primary cause of the harm, relieving the defendant of liability. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Defining Strict Liability. Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a party liable for certain actions or injuries regardless of their intent or level of care. Unlike negligence or intentional torts, strict liability focuses on the inherent risk associated with certain activities or products. Cases Where Strict Liability Applies. Strict liability commonly applies in the following situations: Ultra-Hazardous Activities: Activities that are inherently dangerous and pose a high risk of harm may give rise to strict liability. Examples include blasting, transporting hazardous materials, and keeping wild animals. Product Liability: Strict liability is often applied in cases involving defective products. If a product is defective and causes harm, the manufacturer or seller may be held strictly liable for the injuries. Elements of Strict Liability. To establish strict liability, certain elements must be present: Engaging in an Ultra-Hazardous Activity or Product Defect: The defendant must either engage in an ultra-hazardous activity or be involved in the production or distribution of a defective product. Causation: The plaintiff must establish that the harm suffered was a result of the ultra-hazardous activity or the defect in the product. Harm: Like other tort claims, the plaintiff must have suffered harm or damages as a result of the defendant's actions. Ultra-Hazardous Activities. Ultra-hazardous activities are those that involve a high degree of risk of harm, even when conducted with utmost care. Some factors that may determine whether an activity is ultra-hazardous include: High Risk of Harm: The activity must pose a high risk of harm, even when conducted with reasonable care. Inability to Eliminate Risk: The risk associated with the activity must be such that it cannot be completely eliminated, regardless of the precautions taken. Not a Common Activity: The activity should not be a common one in the community. Product Liability and Defective Products. In the realm of product liability, strict liability can be imposed for injuries caused by defective products. There are three main types of product defects that may lead to strict liability: Design Defects: These occur when the design of the product is inherently dangerous, making it defective even before it is manufactured. Manufacturing Defects: These defects arise during the manufacturing process, causing certain units of a product to be different from the intended design. Marketing Defects (Failure to Warn): A product may be defective if it lacks proper warnings or instructions regarding its use, resulting in harm to the consumer. Defenses to Strict Liability. While strict liability imposes liability without proving fault, there are some defenses available to defendants: Assumption of Risk: If the plaintiff voluntarily assumes the risk associated with the ultra-hazardous activity or the use of the product, it can serve as a defense. Contributory or Comparative Negligence: In some jurisdictions, the plaintiff's own negligence in causing the harm may reduce or eliminate the defendant's liability. Product Misuse: If the plaintiff's misuse of the product is a substantial factor in causing the harm, it may be a defense. Case Example: Ultrahazardous Activity - Blasting Operation Imagine a scenario where a company engages in a blasting operation to clear a construction site. Despite taking all reasonable precautions, the blasting operation causes vibrations that result in damage to neighboring properties. In this case: Ultra-Hazardous Activity: Blasting is considered an ultra-hazardous activity due to its high risk of harm, even with reasonable care. Causation: The harm suffered by the neighboring properties is a direct result of the blasting operation. Case Example: Product Liability - Defective Automobile Airbags. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Defining Intentional Torts. Intentional torts are civil wrongs where the defendant intentionally commits an act that results in harm to the plaintiff. Unlike negligence, where the focus is on the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care, intentional torts involve the defendant's deliberate actions. Types of Intentional Torts. Intentional torts cover a broad spectrum of wrongful acts. Let's explore some common types: Assault: Assault occurs when one person intentionally puts another in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. The key is the victim's reasonable fear. Battery: Battery involves the intentional and harmful or offensive touching of another person without their consent. It's not the harm caused but the intentional act of touching that defines battery. False Imprisonment: False imprisonment occurs when one person intentionally restricts another's freedom of movement within a bounded area without their consent. The victim must be aware of the confinement or harmed by it. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: This tort involves intentional conduct that is extreme and outrageous, causing severe emotional distress to another person. Defamation: Defamation is the intentional publication of a false statement that harms the reputation of another person. It includes both written (libel) and spoken (slander) forms. Invasion of Privacy: Invasion of privacy comprises several intentional torts, such as intrusion into seclusion, publication of private facts, false light, and appropriation of likeness. Trespass to Land: Trespass to land occurs when a person intentionally enters the land of another without permission. It covers physical entry or causing an object to enter the land. Trespass to Chattels and Conversion: These torts involve intentional interference with another person's personal property. Trespass to chattels is a lesser interference, while conversion is a substantial interference or wrongful possession. Elements of Intentional Torts. To succeed in an intentional tort claim, certain elements must be established, including: Intent: The defendant must have the intent to commit the act that resulted in harm. Intent can be specific, intending the actual consequences, or general, intending the act but not necessarily the harm. Causation: The defendant's intentional act must be the actual cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Harm: The plaintiff must have suffered harm or damages as a result of the defendant's intentional act. Defenses to Intentional Torts. Defendants in intentional tort cases have several defenses at their disposal: Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the defendant's actions, knowing the risks involved, it can serve as a complete defense. Self-Defense: Individuals have the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves from an imminent threat. Defense of Others: Similar to self-defense, a person may use reasonable force to protect another person who is in imminent danger. Defense of Property: Individuals have the right to use reasonable force to protect their property from being invaded or stolen. Privilege: Certain statements made in specific contexts, such as in courtrooms or legislative proceedings, are protected by privilege and are not subject to defamation claims. Case Example: Assault and Battery. Imagine a scenario where Person A threatens to punch Person B and then proceeds to strike them, causing physical harm. In this case: Assault: The threat by Person A to punch Person B puts Person B in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact. This constitutes assault. Battery: The intentional act of Person A striking Person B, causing physical harm, constitutes battery. The key is the intentional act of touching, regardless of the harm caused. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Understanding Causation. Causation is the linchpin of tort law. It establishes the direct link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries. In essence, it answers the question: Did the defendant's conduct cause the harm suffered by the plaintiff? Two Types of Causation. Causation is typically divided into two categories: Cause-in-Fact (Actual Cause): This aspect of causation examines whether the defendant's actions were the actual cause of the harm. In other words, would the harm have occurred if the defendant had not acted in the way they did? If the answer is no, the defendant's conduct is considered the cause-in-fact of the harm. Proximate Cause (Legal Cause): Proximate cause focuses on the foreseeability of the harm. It asks whether the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions. Proximate cause sets limits on liability, ensuring that defendants are not held responsible for incredibly remote or unforeseeable consequences of their conduct. Cause-in-Fact: "But For" Test. The cause-in-fact element is often determined using the "but for" test. This test asks whether the plaintiff's injuries would have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions. In simpler terms, it examines whether the harm would have happened if the defendant had not acted in the way they did. Proximate Cause: Foreseeability. Proximate cause, on the other hand, hinges on foreseeability. It asks whether a reasonable person could foresee that their actions might result in the harm suffered by the plaintiff. If the harm was not foreseeable, it may not be considered a proximate cause. Case Example: Car Accident. Consider a car accident case where Driver A runs a red light, collides with Driver B's car, and injures Driver B. In this scenario: Cause-in-fact: The cause-in-fact element is satisfied by the "but for" test. "But for" Driver A running the red light, the accident and Driver B's injuries would not have occurred. Proximate cause: Proximate cause, in this case, depends on whether a reasonable person could foresee that running a red light might result in a collision and injuries. If the collision and injuries were foreseeable consequences of running a red light, Driver A's actions would likely be considered the proximate cause. Challenges in Causation. Causation can present challenges, particularly in cases where multiple factors contribute to the harm. Some common issues include: Concurrent Causes: In cases where multiple factors or parties contribute to the harm, determining which party's actions were the actual cause can be complex. Intervening Causes: Intervening causes are unforeseeable events or actions that occur after the defendant's conduct but before the harm. They can break the chain of causation. Multiple Plaintiffs: In cases involving multiple plaintiffs, it may be challenging to establish causation for each plaintiff, especially if their injuries resulted from different aspects of the defendant's actions. Case Example: Slip and Fall in a Store. Imagine a scenario where a person slips and falls in a store, suffering injuries. The store's negligence is a potential cause of the injuries. However, if it is discovered that the person was also texting on their phone while walking, their distraction may be considered an intervening cause, breaking the chain of causation. Recent Developments in Causation. The concept of causation is continually evolving, influenced by societal changes, scientific advancements, and legal interpretations. Some recent developments and trends include: Advanced Forensic Science: The use of advanced forensic science has improved the ability to establish causation in cases involving complex injuries or diseases. Environmental Causation: In cases involving environmental harms, such as toxic exposure, courts are increasingly considering scientific evidence to determine causation. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Defenses play a crucial role in the legal landscape. They are the shield that defendants wield in response to tort claims. In this episode, we'll dissect the world of defenses in Tort Law, understanding the various strategies and arguments that can be used to counter tort claims. Whether you're a law student, a legal practitioner, or just curious about the legal intricacies, this episode will provide you with a comprehensive understanding of the defenses available in tort cases. Understanding Defenses in Tort Law. Defenses in tort cases serve as a means for defendants to avoid or mitigate liability. They come in various forms and are rooted in legal principles. Let's explore some common defenses: Contributory Negligence: This defense argues that the plaintiff's own negligence or carelessness contributed to their injuries. In jurisdictions that follow contributory negligence, if the plaintiff is found even slightly negligent, they may be barred from recovering any damages. Comparative Negligence: In jurisdictions that adopt comparative negligence, the defendant argues that the plaintiff's negligence contributed to their injuries. However, under comparative negligence, the plaintiff's recovery is reduced in proportion to their degree of fault, rather than being completely barred. Assumption of Risk: This defense is based on the idea that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risks associated with the activity that led to their injuries. For instance, a person who participates in an inherently dangerous sport may be considered to have assumed the risks involved. Statute of Limitations: This defense asserts that the plaintiff's claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Statutes of limitations set a time limit for bringing legal action, and once that time has passed, the plaintiff cannot pursue a claim. Immunity: Immunity can arise from specific circumstances. For example, certain government entities may enjoy immunity from certain tort claims, while charitable organizations may have immunity under certain conditions. Good Samaritan Laws: In some jurisdictions, there are laws that protect individuals who voluntarily provide assistance to those who are injured or in danger. These laws are designed to encourage people to help without the fear of being sued for unintended consequences. Affirmative Defenses. In addition to the common defenses mentioned earlier, some tort claims involve affirmative defenses, which require the defendant to present evidence supporting their defense. Affirmative defenses can include: Self-Defense: When a person reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of harm, they have the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves. This defense can be asserted in cases involving assault or battery. Defense of Others: Similar to self-defense, a person may use reasonable force to protect another person who is in imminent danger. Defense of Property: Individuals have the right to use reasonable force to protect their property from being invaded or stolen. However, this force must be proportionate to the threat. Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the defendant's actions, knowing the risks involved, it can serve as a complete defense. For example, participants in contact sports are often considered to have consented to the physical contact inherent in the game. Superseding Cause: This defense asserts that an unforeseeable event or action occurred after the defendant's conduct but before the harm, and this event was the primary cause of the harm, relieving the defendant of liability. Defamation Defenses. In cases involving defamation, which refers to false statements that harm a person's reputation, defendants may raise specific defenses: Truth: If the statement is true, it is an absolute defense to defamation claims. Opinion: Expressing an opinion, rather than stating a false fact, is generally protected as free speech. However, there are limits to this defense. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Understanding Strict Liability. To kick things off, let's break down the concept of strict liability in Tort Law. Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds individuals or entities responsible for the harm they cause, regardless of their intent or level of care. Unlike negligence, where fault or wrongdoing must be proven, strict liability focuses solely on the act itself and its consequences. Key Elements of Strict Liability. Strict liability cases typically involve the following key elements: 1. Inherently Dangerous Activities or Products: Strict liability often applies to activities or products that are inherently dangerous, meaning they carry a high risk of harm even when all precautions are taken. 2. Causation: The plaintiff must establish a direct link between the defendant's activity or product and the harm suffered. 3. Damages: To succeed in a strict liability claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they suffered actual harm or losses as a result of the defendant's actions or product. Examples of Strict Liability. Let's explore some real-world examples to illustrate the concept of strict liability: 1. Product Liability: One of the most common applications of strict liability is in product liability cases. If a defective product, such as a malfunctioning car airbag, causes harm to a consumer, the manufacturer may be held strictly liable for the injuries, regardless of whether they were negligent in the manufacturing process. 2. Ultrahazardous Activities: Activities deemed ultrahazardous, such as storing and transporting explosives or hazardous chemicals, often attract strict liability. If an explosion or chemical spill occurs, resulting in harm to others, those responsible may be held strictly liable for the damages. 3. Wild Animal Ownership: Owning wild animals as pets is considered an inherently dangerous activity. If a person's pet tiger escapes and injures someone, the owner can be held strictly liable for the injuries, even if they took precautions to prevent the escape. Analyzing Strict Liability Cases. Now, let's dig deeper into strict liability cases. These cases can be complex, and the outcomes can vary based on jurisdiction and specific circumstances. Let's consider a few illustrative examples: Example 1: Product Liability - Defective Toy. Imagine a scenario where a toy manufacturer produces a children's toy with small parts that pose a choking hazard. A child chokes on one of these small parts and suffers serious harm. In this case: - The toy manufacturer may be held strictly liable for the child's injuries because the product is defective and inherently dangerous to children. - The plaintiff does not need to prove that the manufacturer was negligent in producing the toy; the focus is on the dangerous nature of the product and the harm it caused. Example 2: Ultrahazardous Activity - Chemical Spill. Consider a situation where a chemical company is transporting hazardous chemicals, and due to an accident, a chemical spill occurs, contaminating a nearby river and causing harm to the environment and neighboring communities. In this case: - The chemical company may be held strictly liable for the environmental and personal injuries caused by the spill. - The inherently dangerous nature of transporting hazardous chemicals triggers strict liability. - The company may still be held liable even if it took reasonable precautions to prevent the spill, as strict liability focuses on the dangerousness of the activity itself. Example 3: Wild Animal Ownership - Escape of Exotic Pet. Imagine a person owns a pet lion, and despite secure enclosures, the lion escapes and injures a passerby. In this case: - The owner may be held strictly liable for the injuries caused by the escaped lion. - Owning a wild animal is considered an inherently dangerous activity, and the escape of such an animal can lead to strict liability. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Intentional torts are a fascinating and critical area of Tort Law. In this episode, we'll explore what intentional torts are, delve into various types of intentional torts, understand the essential elements required to prove an intentional tort claim, and explore defenses that defendants can use in such cases. Whether you're a law student, legal practitioner, or simply interested in the intricacies of the law, we're here to provide you with a comprehensive understanding of intentional torts. Understanding Intentional Torts. Intentional torts are a category of civil wrongs where the defendant intentionally engages in conduct that results in harm or injury to the plaintiff. Unlike negligence cases, where the focus is on the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care, intentional torts center on the defendant's deliberate actions. Types of Intentional Torts. Let's begin by exploring some common types of intentional torts: Assault: Assault occurs when one person intentionally puts another in reasonable fear of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Importantly, it's the fear of harm that constitutes assault, not the actual physical contact itself. For example, if someone raises their fist in a threatening manner towards another person, creating a reasonable fear of being punched, that could be considered assault. Battery: Battery is the intentional and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without their consent. Unlike assault, battery requires actual physical contact. If someone punches another person without their consent, that would be a battery. False Imprisonment: False imprisonment occurs when someone intentionally restrains another person's freedom of movement without their consent and without legal justification. This can include actions like locking someone in a room against their will. Trespass to Land: Trespass to land is committed when someone intentionally enters another person's property without permission. This can include physical entry onto the property or causing an object to enter the property's airspace. Trespass to Chattels (Personal Property): This involves intentionally interfering with another person's lawful possession of personal property, causing harm or deprivation. For instance, if someone intentionally damages another person's car without permission, it could be a trespass to chattels. Conversion: Conversion is a more serious form of trespass to chattels. It occurs when someone intentionally interferes with another person's personal property to such an extent that it's akin to taking ownership of that property. If someone not only damages another person's car but also sells it without permission, it could be considered conversion. Elements of Intentional Tort Claims. To establish a successful intentional tort claim, certain elements must be proven: Intent: The defendant must have intentionally engaged in the conduct that caused the harm. Intent means that the defendant either desired the consequences of their actions or was substantially certain that those consequences would occur. Harm or Injury: There must be actual harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's intentional actions. This harm can be physical, emotional, or financial, depending on the type of intentional tort. Causation: The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's intentional actions were the direct cause of the harm suffered. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show, celebrating over 12 years broadcasting on the internet! On Wednesday's show, we conclude our discussion on the basics of Tort Law with Chairman Emeritus of the Cato Institute Bob Levy. Author and Professor Andrew Joppa and I discuss the fallacy of the concept of “the greater good,” the problem of government overreach, and the future of the political career of Governor Ron DeSantis. Please join us on Thursday's show. We'll visit with Keith Flaugh from the Florida Citizen's Alliance, Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. George Markovich, President of Less Government Seton Motley, and Mayor Bill Barnett. Please access this or past shows at your convenience on my web site, social media platforms or podcast platforms.

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.Russell Kendzior is the President of Traction Experts, Inc. and founder of the National Floor Safety Institute. Mr. Kendzior is internationally recognized as the leading expert in slip and fall accident prevention and has been retained in more than 1,000 slip, trip, and fall lawsuits. He hosts the podcast The Safety Matters Show, and he is the author of several books, including Falls Aren't Funny: America's Multi-Billion Dollar Slip-And-Fall Crisis.This concept of simply testing to an internationally-recognized consensus standard and labeling the product is really what we're asking the government to do. We're not demanding any level of performance, but simply tell the consumer.Russell KendziorYou can participate in the public review process— the process whereby commissioners are asking members of the public for comments… It's important that the people of our country have a voice, and that they be represented, and that the safety of these products that are contributing to six million hospital emergency room visits a year need to be better managed.Russell KendziorWe should emphasize that all these situations [involving slips, trips, and falls] in the court of law are under tort law… It's good to talk about them as torts, because people often don't recognize how important tort law is to protect them, to help compensate them, to disclose to the larger audience the hazards for their own protection, and to engage in prevention.Ralph NaderIn Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeSantis1. In a major blow to Governor Greg Abbott, the Texas House of Representatives voted 86-52 in favor of an amendment to bar state funds from being used for private school vouchers, according to KXAN. This was achieved through a coalition of Democrats and rural Republicans in the Lone Star State, per NBC.2. The Washington Post reports that greater numbers of assisted-living facilities are rejecting Medicaid and evicting seniors from their homes. One particularly harrowing story involves Shirley Holtz, a 91 year old with mobility issues and dementia who was evicted from her hospice care because the facility decided to refuse Medicaid payments.3. In a statement responding to the ProPublica report on undisclosed gifts received by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin stressed that “Supreme Court Justices must be held to an enforceable code of conduct, just like every other federal judge. The ProPublica report is a call to action, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will act.” However, the Judiciary Committee has been hamstrung by Democratic absences, particularly that of California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has missed nearly 60 votes since February, according to The San Francisco Chronice.4. Barak Ravid reports that the U.S. has blocked the release of a planned United Nations Security Council statement decrying the Israeli police raid at the al-Aqsa mosque, one of the holiest sites in Islam, during Ramadan.5. More Perfect Union has issued a statement saying “Months after 440 Planned Parenthood nurses and staff in five Midwest states voted to unionize, management has fired 2 members of the union's bargaining team and issued ‘final written warnings' to all 11 other bargaining team members threatening immediate termination.”6. From Truthout, Rep. Pramila Jayapal has filed an official constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. A constitutional amendment is currently the only means available for reversing this catastrophic decision.7. In a video obtained by Gothamist, NYPD officers arresting a man wearing a Black Lives Matter sticker on his bike helmet were recorded bragging about “milking” overtime, referred to a female arrestee a "liberal [c word]," and joked about committing the arrestee to a mental hospital. This comes as Mayor Eric Adams announced that NYPD officers who work for five years will now make approximately $50K more per year than teachers with the same amount of time, an overall increase of $5.5 billion to the most expensive police department in the country, according to CBS.8. Robert Costa of CBS reports that former Rep. Dennis Kucinich is advising Robert F Kennedy Jr. on his presidential run. Costa went on to say that Kucinich could be the campaign manager or a top political adviser, and that Kucinich has urged Kennedy to focus more on the environment than his signature anti-vaccine message.9. Kansas Public Media KCUR reports that Republicans in that state overrode the Democratic Governor's veto and authorized genital inspections on minors in order for children to play sports. Somehow, the party advocating for adults to inspect children's genitals is calling the other party “groomers” with a straight face.10. From Deadline: Progressive lawmakers are calling on the Department of Justice to investigate the Warner Brothers merger with Discovery. In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and DOJ antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter, the signatories allege that the merger “appears to have enabled” the company to “adopt potentially anticompetitive practices that reduce consumer choice and harm workers in affected labor markets.” They went on to argue that the merger has led to the “hollowing out” of an “iconic American studio,” and cited the cancellation of projects and the removal of content from the HBO Max platform.11. Dueling court orders have resulted in uncertainty about universal access to the abortion pill Mifepristone. Regarding the order to suspend the drug, Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden issued a statement declaring “I believe the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to ignore this ruling.” The Senate Finance Committee oversees the FDA.12. The Austin American-Statesman reports that, less than 24 hours after Daniel Perry was convicted of murdering Garrett Foster, a Black Lives Matter protester in 2020, Governor Greg Abbott announced that he would pardon the convicted killer as soon as a request "hits my desk." While the killer claimed that he was acting in self defense, he had mused on social media that he might “kill a few people on my way to work.”13. From Bloomberg Law: The International Brotherhood of Teamsters reported gaining 206,000 members in 2022, an increase of 20% from the previous year. Many credit this growth to the new leadership in the union, which took power in 2022. Teamsters President Sean O'Brien responded to this news by tweeting “Just getting started.” Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today, we're discussing Proximate Cause – a subtopic of Negligence in Tort Law. In this episode we discuss: Reviewing the elements of negligence The two hurdles a plaintiff must overcome when it comes to causation The rule for proximate cause Intervening causes and intervening criminal acts Analyzing two hypos from previous California bar exams Resources:  “Listen and Learn” series (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/law-school-toolbox-podcast-substantive-law-topics/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2010 (https://juraxbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/July-2010-CBX.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2014 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/gbx/July2014CBX_SelectedAnswersEssays1-6_R.pdf) Podcast Episode 244: Listen and Learn – Negligence Per Se (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-244-listen-and-learn-negligence-per-se/) Podcast Episode 257: Listen and Learn – The “Reasonable Person” Standard (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-257-listen-and-learn-the-reasonable-person-standard/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-382-listen-and-learn-negligence-proximate-cause/) 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

In a live Zoom event in conjunction with the American Museum of Tort Law, we welcome back Claire Nader, author of “You Are Your Own Best Teacher” and Susan Linn, author of “Who's Raising the Kids?” for a lively panel discussion moderated by child advocacy legal expert, Robert Fellmeth, on the ongoing corporatization of childhood. We also hear from audience members but not just old people talking about “kids today.” A thoughtful seventh grader gives us a young person's perspective.Robert Fellmeth is the Price Professor of Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego and the Executive Director of the Center for Public Interest Law. He is also Executive Director of the Children's Advocacy Institute, which authored The Fleecing of Foster Children: How We Confiscate Their Assets and Undermine Their Financial SecurityWe have one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in the history of the world, which basically equates corporations with individuals. It equates corporate entities with private citizens. And they're not the same thing…You cannot have the Citizens United-type case that equates the two and still have a democracy.Robert FellmethDr. Susan Linn is an author, psychologist, and award-winning ventriloquist. She was the Founding Director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (now known as Fairplay), and she is a world-renowned expert on creative play and the impact of media and commercial marketing on children. Her latest book is Who's Raising The Kids? Big Tech, Big Business and the Lives of Children.I think what people don't understand is that these beloved characters are used to sell things to kids. And that there is really almost no place in media—including public media, today— where children can go, where someone is not trying to sell them something.Dr. Susan Linn, author of Who's Raising The Kids? Big Tech, Big Business and the Lives of ChildrenClaire Nader is a political scientist and author recognized for her work on the impact of science on society. She is an advocate for numerous causes at the local, national and international level. As the first social scientist working at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, she joined pioneering initiatives in energy conservation and the multifaceted connections between science, technology and public policy. Her latest book is You Are Your Own Best Teacher! Sparking the Curiosity, Imagination and Intellect of Tweens.[How children suffer due to corporate predators] scares me to death, as a matter of fact. I want to run away from the lives of children under these conditions. But I can run to a different atmosphere for children—if you will— and that's what I try to put in my book.Claire Nader, author of You Are Your Own Best Teacher! Sparking the Curiosity, Imagination and Intellect of Tweens Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe