Convergence and Contrast in Tort Scholarship: An Essay in Honor of Robert Rabin
John C. P. Goldberg
Harvard Law School
Benjamin C. Zipursky
Fordham University School of Law
August 20, 2012
DePaul Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 467, 2012
Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2132805
This contribution to a festschrift honoring Professor Robert Rabin examines overlap and divergence between his approach to Torts and our own civil recourse theory. We first flesh out Rabin’s approach by identifying three antinomies that serve as organizing themes in his work – individualized v. bureaucratic compensation; the fault principle v. enterprise liability; and Realism v. Formalism. We then provide an in-depth analysis of Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, a decision that Rabin and his casebook co-author Marc Franklin helped make famous among torts scholars. Seffert illustrates both the power and the limitations of law-and-society methodology as applied to tort law. It also demonstrates the capacity of civil recourse theory to capture dimensions of tort law that are obscured by other approaches, and to elucidate contemporary issues in tort reform, such as the propriety of limits on pain and suffering damages.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 36
Keywords: Civil Recourse, Compensation, Damages, Enterprise Liability, Fault, Formalism, Law and Society, Pain and Suffering, Rabin, Realism, Seffert, Strict Liability, Tort, Tort Reform, TraynorAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: August 21, 2012
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.610 seconds