The Transformation of the Civil Trial and the Emergence of American Tort Law

73 Pages Posted: 23 Aug 2016 Last revised: 9 Apr 2018

See all articles by Kenneth S. Abraham

Kenneth S. Abraham

University of Virginia School of Law

G. Edward White

University of Virginia School of Law

Date Written: August 22, 2016

Abstract

Everyone agrees that American tort law expanded significantly in the late nineteenth century. But the story of that change, as usually told, is radically incomplete. One important precondition of tort law as we now know it was a major change in evidence law, one that only began to emerge after 1850. Before then, plaintiffs, defendants, and other “interested” parties were almost universally prohibited from testifying in civil trials. With this prohibition on party testimony, what the jury knew about the facts underlying a tort action was derivative and incomplete. Far fewer tort actions were brought at all, because often the only evidence available to the plaintiff was his or her own account of what had happened, and that was inadmissible. But with the change, victims of personal injury were now able to describe, before juries, the circumstances in which they had been injured. They were able to talk about what they had done, what the entities they were suing had done or not done, and how they had suffered. They no longer needed the fortuitous presence of third-party witnesses to elicit testimony about how had they had been injured. The abolition of the prohibition on party testimony, in short, made it much easier to succeed in personal injury lawsuits.

At stake in this transformation was the very epistemology of the civil trial. With the admission of party testimony, civil trials went from being pre-modern efforts to resolve disputes whose outcomes were affected by the spiritual weight assigned to oaths taken by third-party witnesses, to the modern searches for factual truth that we now (incorrectly) assume they always have been. Without this transformation, other factors that later brought about modern tort liability could not have exercised the influence that they did have. The transformation created the very conditions under which modern tort law could, and then did, emerge. Yet the transformation and its significance for tort law have gone largely unrecognized. Modern tort scholars appear to be completely unaware of the prohibition on party testimony, and have therefore failed for more than a century to take it into account in the way they have written and taught about the development of the law of torts. Because the rules and practices that preceded the transformation have now completely disappeared from modern torts cases, what it accomplished may appear, incorrectly, to have always been the case. But it is lack of visibility, rather than lack of responsibility, that has actually been at work in hiding the significance of the transformation for the emergence of modern tort law.

Keywords: torts, evidence, civil trial, tort law history

JEL Classification: K13, K41

Suggested Citation

Abraham, Kenneth S. and White, G. Edward, The Transformation of the Civil Trial and the Emergence of American Tort Law (August 22, 2016). Arizona Law Review, Forthcoming; Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2016-57. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2827667

Kenneth S. Abraham (Contact Author)

University of Virginia School of Law ( email )

580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
United States
434-924-3616 (Phone)
434-982-2845 (Fax)

G. Edward White

University of Virginia School of Law ( email )

580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
United States
(434) 924-3455 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.law.virginia.edu/lawweb/faculty.nsf/PrF

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
238
rank
125,451
Abstract Views
894
PlumX Metrics