Table of Contents

Consumer Protection in Ghana: An Appraisal of the Law

Lydia A. Nkansah, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology - Faculty of Law

The Benighted Hand Mechanism

Joseph I Daniel, University of Delaware - Economics

Defining 'Accidents' in the Air: Why Tort Law Principles are Essential in Interpreting the Montreal Convention's 'Accident' Requirement

Alexa West, Fordham Law Review

'Privacy and Freedom of the Press from 2004-2015: From Campbell to Leveson'

Lachlan Urquhart, University of Nottingham, School of Computer Science

Accident Costs, Resource Allocation and Individual Rationality: Blum, Kalven and Calabresi

Alain Marciano, Université de Montpellier, French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) - Laboratoire d'économie théorique et appliquée (LAMETA)
Rustam Romaniuc, Université de Montpellier - LAMETA, Università di Torino - IEL

See No Fiduciary, Hear No Fiduciary: A Lawyer's Knowledge within Aiding and Abetting Fiduciary Breach Claims

Brinkley Rowe, Fordham University, School of Law, Students


TORTS & PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW eJOURNAL

"Consumer Protection in Ghana: An Appraisal of the Law" Free Download
Joseph Ayo Babalola University Law Journal (2015), 2(1), 185-200

LYDIA A. NKANSAH, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology - Faculty of Law
Email:

The Ghanaian market shows that there are a lot of sharp dealings against which no individual consumer can prevail. This comes by way of overblown prices, use of inferior material, disregard of standard weights and measures and adulteration of goods. There are laws that can check all these practices already in existence. But as a rule they do not affect the individual consumer directly caught up in a difficult position and manufacturers and suppliers of goods and services get away with impunity. The contribution of this paper is to examine the various aspects of the substantive law in terms of which protection may be afforded the consumer at law, particularly the various contexts in which the consumer disputes do and can arise. Legislative intervention in the form of a comprehensive consumer protection statute that would ensure strict liability of wrongdoing in consumer’s transactions would be required.

"The Benighted Hand Mechanism" Free Download

JOSEPH I DANIEL, University of Delaware - Economics
Email:

This paper designs a mechanism that generalizes Judge Learned Hand’s negligence liability tests from his classic opinions in T. J. HOOPER (1932) and CARROLL TOWING (1947). The “Benighted Hand? mechanism incentivizes truthful reporting of the agents’ private costs of bilateral caretaking when agents also face different effectiveness of care and shares of injury costs. In “The Problem of Social Cost? (1960), Ronald Coase noted that Judges may not have the requisite knowledge of the costs of caretaking to determine the optimal level of care, but he and much of the subsequent literature simply treat this problem as a source of exogenous transaction costs. The mechanism design framework treats costs of obtaining private information endogenously, by incentivizing strategic agents to truthfully reveal their private information. The resulting liability schedule is efficient, but not generally compensatory. It allocates the full costs of accidents (including the costs of precaution) equally among the parties.

"Defining 'Accidents' in the Air: Why Tort Law Principles are Essential in Interpreting the Montreal Convention's 'Accident' Requirement" Free Download

ALEXA WEST, Fordham Law Review
Email:

Exceptions do not exist in a vacuum; in fact, exceptions to a principle are usually formed using those principles to which it is an exception. Even so, United States courts interpreting the “accident? requirement of the Montreal Convention — an exception to traditional tort law regarding injuries sustained during international air travel — fail to use tort law in evaluating whether certain situations meet the “accident? criteria. Consequentially, many decisions render airlines responsible for a passenger’s injuries where any other premises owner would not be implicated in the same circumstances. This directly contrasts the intent of the Montreal Convention’s creators, who wanted to limit carrier liability to foster the airline industry’s viability. Instead of interpreting “accident? to make carriers liable in a narrower set of circumstances and thereby protect airlines, courts are interpreting “accident? in a way that broadens the airline’s responsibilities.

This Note examines the history of and the reasons for the Montreal Convention, which in part forces airlines to indemnify passengers for injuries resulting from incidents qualifying as “accidents? — a term undefined in the treaty. The Convention and the subsequent case law interpreting it show to qualify as an “accident,? the injury-producing incident must be causally connected to the plane’s operation. Importantly, the causal connection’s adequacy should be evaluated according to American tort jurisprudence even though the “accident? requirement itself is an exception to general tort law. This Note focuses on a particular type of injury-producing event, a co-passenger tort, because of its interesting causal nature that exemplifies the contrast between decisions using tort law and those rendered under the Convention.

"'Privacy and Freedom of the Press from 2004-2015: From Campbell to Leveson'" Free Download
in L Edwards Law, Policy and the Internet (Hart Publishing: Forthcoming)

LACHLAN URQUHART, University of Nottingham, School of Computer Science
Email:

This chapter documents the developments in the English law of breach of confidence since the seminal Campbell v MGN case in 2004. In particular, we document the growth of the new action of ‘misuse of private information’. We conduct a largely doctrinal analysis of the case law by consolidating the complex, fragmented domain of principles and tests established by the courts.

We situate these within the broader concerns around regulation of the UK print press, how this system is changing in light of the Leveson Inquiry, European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) jurisprudence and the new Royal Charter on Self Regulation of the Press.

We also look at the impact of new technologies on regulation of collection and distribution of the news. We briefly consider two examples, namely social media and superinjunctions, and use of drones to collect news.

"Accident Costs, Resource Allocation and Individual Rationality: Blum, Kalven and Calabresi" Free Download
European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Forthcoming

ALAIN MARCIANO, Université de Montpellier, French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) - Laboratoire d'économie théorique et appliquée (LAMETA)
Email:
RUSTAM ROMANIUC, Université de Montpellier - LAMETA, Università di Torino - IEL
Email:

In this paper, we analyze the controversy that took place between Blum and Kalven, and Calabresi around rationality or, more broadly, how individuals behave. We analyze how their respective conception regarding this specific aspect was included in their analyses about what economics could say about fault, liability and compensation of victims in case of accident and their respective views on the law. First, we show that the debate was a sequel of the discussions that took place in tort law from the 1930s to the 1950s. Second, we claim that their treatment of rationality strongly relates to their views about what the law should be and about what are the objectives and goals of the law.

"See No Fiduciary, Hear No Fiduciary: A Lawyer's Knowledge within Aiding and Abetting Fiduciary Breach Claims" Free Download
Fordham Law Review, Vol. 85, Fall/Winter 2016

BRINKLEY ROWE, Fordham University, School of Law, Students
Email:

Fiduciary liability for attorney conduct generally extends only to direct clients of legal services. Over the last few decades, however, the lawyer’s role has expanded. Following this trend, fiduciary liability has also expanded to allow third-party claims in certain limited circumstances. One example is the attorney aiding and abetting a client’s fiduciary breach claim.

One of the key requirements for liability under this claim is the attorney’s knowledge of their client’s fiduciary relationship with the third party alleging the breach. Within those jurisdictions that have accepted the claim, there are two approaches to the knowledge element. The first is the constructive knowledge standard that permits liability if the attorney knew or reasonably should have known of the fiduciary relationship. The second approach is the actual knowledge standard that requires overt and obvious evidence of fiduciary knowledge. In addition to these standards, a third approach ignores the knowledge element entirely: the qualified immunity standard that denies third party attorney liability as long as the conduct falls within an attorney-client relationship. This note argues for the rejection of constructive knowledge and adoption of either the qualified immunity or actual knowledge standards for numerous doctrinal and policy reasons while maintaining the claim’s original policy goals.

^top

About this eJournal

This eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts dealing with torts, product liability, and insurance law. Related articles may also be published in other Legal Scholarship Network journals, including Law and Economics; Litigation, Procedure, and Dispute Resolution; Health Law and Policy; Employment and Labor Law; and Environmental Law and Policy.

Editor: Keith N. Hylton, Boston University

Submissions

To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: RPS@SSRN.com

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

Directors

LSN SUBJECT MATTER EJOURNALS

BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: bblack@northwestern.edu

RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: rgilson@leland.stanford.edu

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.

Advisory Board

Torts & Products Liability Law eJournal

ANITA BERNSTEIN
Anita and Stuart Subotnick Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

RICHARD A. EPSTEIN
Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law , New York University School of Law, Stanford University - Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Chicago - Law School

MARK GEISTFELD
Sheila Lubetsky Birnbaum Professor of Civil Litigation, New York University School of Law

MARK F. GRADY
Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law

SAUL LEVMORE
William B. Graham Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School

ROBERT L. RABIN
A. Calder Mackay Professor of Law, Stanford Law School

W. KIP VISCUSI
University Distinguished Professor of Law, Economics, and Management, Vanderbilt University - Law School, Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), University Distinguished Professor of Law, Economics, and Management, Vanderbilt University - Department of Economics, University Distinguished Professor of Law, Economics, and Management, Vanderbilt University - Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University - Strategy and Business Economics

RICHARD W. WRIGHT
Professor of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology - Chicago-Kent College of Law