edical malpractice is in the news, again. The early 2000s have seen the third upheaval in medical liability insurance over the last three decades. States have as always been the first responders, but liability reform has also become a high-profile federal issue. Physicians, their liability insurers, and their allies promote state and federal tort reform to curb lawsuits. Their key goal is a “ca...

This Article considers a new development in medical practice-the use of medical decision-support tools-and positions it within one of the most enduring debates at the intersection of administrative law and tort law. The Article identifies key factors that policy-makers in medical, environmental, and other contexts use to decide between regulatory and tort approaches to public protection, and ar...

'RESTATEMENT, ToRTS §§ 334-339 (1934)'Id. § 333. 'Sioux City & Pac. R.R. v. Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 657 (873), was the first case to articulate the doctrine in this country, although the Court cited two, Connecticut cases, Birge v. Gardiner, 19 Conn. 507 (1849) and Daley v. Norwich & W.R.R., 26 Conn. 591 (1858), and Lynch v. Nurdin, I QB. 29, 113 Eng. Rep. 1o41 (141), as "authorities" for its...

The "duty to protect" third parties, first imposed by the Tarasoff case, has concerned and perplexed clinicians. A series of guidelines is offered for reducing therapist exposure to suit, based on expert witness experience in a number of cases raising this form of tort liability. These guidelines concern the assessment and management of risk, the documentation of information and activities, the...

The system of tort liability for medical malpractice is frequently criticized for poorly performing its theoretical functions of compensating injured patients, deterring negligence, and dispensing corrective justice. Working from an actual malpractice case involving serious injury but no apparent negligence, the authors explore these criticisms from the perspectives of both the plaintiff-patien...

For the past decade, federal judges have been obligated to serve as gatekeepers and keep scientifically unreliable and irrelevant expert testimony out of the courtroom. The exacting evidentiary standards set forth in the landmark Daubert decision have had a significant impact on numerous areas of legal dispute. Toxic tort litigation, in particular, has been transformed by the standards. This Ar...