|
 |
PUBLICATIONS
| Cite as: J. High Tech. L. |
| Michael L. Rustad, Thomas F. Lambert,
Jr., Professor of Law & Co-Director
of the Intellectual, Property Law Concentration, Suffolk University
Law School |
|
| Michael L. Rustad and Thomas H.
Koenig, Chair of the Department of
Sociology and Anthropology and Professor in the Law, Policy and Society
doctoral program, Northeastern University |
Professors Rustad and Koenig examine the impediments in the development of harmonized Internet torts. Their analysis consists of three focal parts. In Part I, the authors examine the barriers precluding the development of a harmonized cybertort system that would protect American and European internet consumers and businesses. Part II describes the differing legal approaches of the United States and Europe involving tortious acts. Finally, in Part III, the authors conclude by examining the feasibility of an increased harmonization in the realm of torts between Europe and the United States. .
|
| Jay M. Feinman, Distinguished Professor of Law, Rutgers
University School of Law, Camden |
| Professor Feinman analyzes the possible future of tort law in the United States . Through his description of the historical origins of the process of the unmaking tort law, Feinman lays a foundation to further explain the current national movement of tort reform. Using these reform efforts, he extrapolates their future implications as having dire consequences for the tort system. Feinman contrasts this future unmaking with the possible remaking of tort law. He envisions the remaking of torts as taking an ad hoc form, which will focus on particular issues instead on general theories.
|
| Jeffrey R. White, Amicus counsel at the Center for Constitutional
Litigation, which filed an amicus brief in State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co. v. Campbell on behalf of the Association of Trial Lawyers
of America |
| In the realm of civil litigation, Attorney White illustrates why juries and their punitive damage awards are an exercise of democracy. Using references to America 's early years as a colony, White illustrates how the concept of jury awarded punitive damages is among the great principles on which the American system of liberty was built. He traces the developments of punitive damages through the twentieth century, where many business leaders aimed on making them more predictable.
White further examines how the Supreme Court has handled the issue of punitive damages. White illustrated through a series of cases, that tort reformers challenged punitive damage awards on constitutional grounds in the Court. He culminates his analysis with a description of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell , in which the Court overturned a jury's award for punitive damages. He further lays out the impact of this ruling on legal system and examines the feasibility of a bright line rule to determine when punitive damages are excessive.
|
| Justice Allen M. Linden, Federal Court of Canada |
Justice Linden examines tort law in the United States . He looks at the purpose of the tort system and its value to America . He further traced the history of torts in America , from as a legal instrument used to seek remedy for industrial accidents during the 19 th century through the 20 th century where new legal concepts were developed. Linden also examines the assault on the tort system starting in the 1980's in which, the American Congress passed legislation limiting liability and capping damages for plaintiffs. He then identifies where he believes the torts system in America will be headed in the future. .
|
 |
|
