Category: Tort Law

23

Is the Alien Tort Statute Really Limited to Suits Against U.S. Citizens?

(Marco Simons is Legal Director of EarthRights, International.  He is a graduate of Yale Law School, where he received the Robert L. Bernstein Fellowship in International Human Rights.)

The Supreme Court will hear argument in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Tuesday, to determine whether corporations can be sued for serious human rights abuses under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 USC 1350. But some scholars are urging the court to decide the case on other grounds.

There is a set of conservative legal scholars who intensely dislike the ATS and especially its modern use in international human rights cases. This dislike is somewhat mystifying – what the ATS essentially does is allow cases to be brought in federal court, rather than state court, where they implicate torts against aliens in violation of serious international law violations, such as torture or genocide. Would it really be better to hear cases against Paraguayan torturers or Rwandan genocidaires in state court?

Led by Curtis Bradley, Anthony Bellia, and Bradford Clark, this group of scholars argued strenuously that the ATS did not allow cases under modern human rights law at all. After this position was thoroughly repudiated by the Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, they have trotted out new arguments. The latest, from Bellia & Clark, is that the ATS only allows suits by aliens against U.S. citizens; it’s started to get some traction, as four Ninth Circuit judges adopted a version of this argument in their dissent in the Sarei v. Rio Tinto case decided in October.

Read More

0

LTAA Symposium: Response to Matwyshyn on Artificial Agents and Contracting

Andrea Matwyshyn’s reading of the agency analysis of contracting  (offered in A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents and also available at SSRN) is very rigorous and raises some very interesting questions. I thank her for her careful and attentive reading of the analysis and will try and do my best to respond to her concerns here. The doctrinal challenges that Andrea raises are serious and substantive for the extension and viability of our doctrine. As I note below, accommodating some of her concerns is the perfect next step.

At the outset, I should state what some of our motivations were for adopting agency doctrine for artificial agents in contracting scenarios (these helped inform the economic incentivizing argument for maintaining some separation between artificial agents and their creators or their deployers.

First,

[A]pplying agency doctrine to artificial agents would permit the legal system to distinguish clearly between the operator of the agent i.e., the person making the technical arrangements for the agent’s operations, and the user of the agent, i.e., the principal on whose behalf the agent is operating in relation to a particular transaction.

Second,

Embracing agency doctrine would also allow a clear distinction to be drawn between the authority of the agent to bind the principal and the instructions given to the agent by its operator.

Third, an implicit, unstated economic incentive.

Read More

0

Parental Rights (cont.)

I’m reaching the end of my mid-month guest stint here at ConcurringOpinions.com and before I sign off, I want to respond to some of the comments made in my last post about the video of the father shooting his daughter’s computer — in particular, comments about my concluding remark, “I have no doubt that if a husband shot a .45 into a wife’s laptop, it would be considered an act of domestic violence.”   Some disagreed.  But I spent a year as a Joint Bunting Institute/Children’s Hospital Fellow in Domestic Violence back in the 1990’s, and in training materials and other work by advocates, destruction of  property is almost always included in the definitions of domestic violence.  See the National Coalition on Domestic Violence (http://www.ncadv.org/learn/TheProblem.php)  and  the Department of Justice (http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/domviolence.htm#dv).  Destruction of property is among the acts defined as domestic violence in many states – see, e.g.,California and Colorado ( “Domestic violence also includes “any other crime against a person or against property, or any  municipal ordinance violation against a person or against property when used as a method of coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or revenge directed against a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship.” (Colorado Revised Statutes Section 18-6-800.3(1))).  Domestic violence offenders can also be charged with criminal destruction of property or criminal mischief.  There has been considerable discussion about whether destruction of property can be charged where the offender is a co-owner of the property, but New York, e.g., recently amended the law to ensure that criminal mischief could be charged even in such cases.

What I was driving at in the remark concerns the general  subject of the post:  parental  rights.   It is assumed  that physical (and other) forms of violence can be inflicted on children  because parents have a right to do so, a right that at its core includes a kind  of property claim:  This child belongs to me.  Parental rights advocates most loudly assert their rights against the state, but the  right of the parent is also of course a right against the child.  This includes the right – and this was the  focus of my post on recent research on physical punishment – to commit battery against children that would not be tolerated against adults or against  strangers.   The argument that it is  “logically flawed” to compare a husband’s relationship to a wife to a father’s relationship to a child begs the question of what the scope of parental rights should be.  (And it should be remembered  that it was not so long ago that women were considered property of their  husbands as well and that husbands had “rights” against their wives very different from what they are thought to have – the marital rape exception was eliminated very recently).

It’s been a pleasure blogging here at CoOp.  Thanks to Sarah Waldeck and the rest of the group for having me.

 

 

 

0

Stanford Law Review Online: The Privacy Paradox 2012 Symposium Issue

Stanford Law Review

Our 2012 Symposium Issue, The Privacy Paradox: Privacy and Its Conflicting Values, is now available online:

Essays

The text of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s keynote is forthcoming.

15

Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

A recent study published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal brings up the unresolved debate about parental rights and physical punishment of children.  This study lends support to an argument I made some years ago in an article called “Suing for Lost Childhood” about the use of the delayed discovery rule in child sexual abuse cases.  In my article, I argued that physical abuse of children and neglect can have impacts on children’s development that are as destructive as sexual abuse, but for a variety of reasons we are as a culture more attuned to issues related to children and sexuality.  (I later called the analysis used in that article “narrative genealogy” as it traces the cultural origins and migrations of stories that ultimately had shaping effects on legal decisions.)

The CMAJ study reviews 20 years of published research on physical punishment of children and concludes that no evidence exists of positive outcomes.  Physical punishment is correlated with aggression and antisocial behavior, cognitive impairment and developmental problems, as well as depression, spousal abuse, and substance abuse.  Co-author Joan Durrant says, “”There are no studies that show any long term positive outcomes from physical punishment.”   Summaries of the study say that the study refutes the frequent argument that aggression comes before corporal punishment and not vice versa.  (I’ll get to the viral video of the dad shooting his daughter’s computer with a .45).

Read More

Symposium Next Week on “A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents”

On February 14-16, we will host an online symposium on A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents, by Samir Chopra and Laurence White. Given the great discussions at our previous symposiums for Tim Wu’s Master Switch  and Jonathan Zittrain’s Future of the Internet, I’m sure this one will be a treat.  Participants will include Ken AndersonRyan CaloJames Grimmelmann, Sonia KatyalIan KerrAndrea MatwyshynDeborah DeMottPaul Ohm,  Ugo PagalloLawrence SolumRamesh Subramanian and Harry Surden.  Chopra will be reading their posts and responding here, too.  I discussed the book with Chopra and Grimmelmann in Brooklyn a few months ago, and I believe the audience found fascinating the many present and future scenarios raised in it.  (If you’re interested in Google’s autonomous cars, drones, robots, or even the annoying little Microsoft paperclip guy, you’ll find something intriguing in the book.)

There is an introduction to the book below the fold.  (Chapter 2 of the book was published in the Illinois Journal of Law, Technology and Policy, and can be found online at SSRN).  We look forward to hosting the discussion!

Read More

0

Lebron v. Padilla cont.

I received an interesting question asking how my analysis is informed by the recent trend in Bivens cases (outside the national security context) to “assimilate the Bivens inquiry to the Court’s now restrictive jurisprudence on implied statutory causes of action.”  Here is a brief answer. I’m not in general agreement with an approach conflating implied constitutional and statutory causes of action as, say, two variants of federal common law, because I do believe it makes a difference whether the source is a statute or the Constitution. But even if you accept the premise of the more restrictive approach, it is problematic that due regard is not being given to the extensive activity of Congress with respect to Bivens that lies between legislating and not-legislating, between creation of an express cause of action and silence.     Read More

0

Privacy Torts in Canada and the International Convergence of Privacy Law

Over at the HL Chronicle of Data Protection, I have a post entitled Privacy Torts in Canada and the International Convergence of Privacy Law. The post discusses a recent privacy tort case from Ontario, Canada that recognizes the Warren and Brandeis’ privacy tort of intrusion upon seclusion.  From the post:

The recognition of the US privacy torts by a Canadian court is further demonstration of a general trend – the convergence of privacy law across countries around the world.  Although profound differences in the law remain between countries, there has also been significant convergence.

Read the rest of the post over at HL Chronicle.

3

Lebron v. Rumsfeld: the Fourth Circuit Drops an Anvil on Bivens

I’m going to interrupt my look at the ECHR’s decision in Othman, in order to offer a few observations on the Fourth Circuit decision this week in Lebron v. Rumsfeld.  (There has been a little discussion on Lawfare.)  This case is one of two Bivens cases that had been pending involving Jose Padilla.  (The other is still before the Ninth Circuit and the parties have just been ordered to brief the effect of the Fourth Circuit decision, especially with respect to the issue of non-mutual collateral estoppel).   In Lebron, the Fourth Circuit found that “special factors” preclude a Bivens remedy in cases involving “enemy combatants” in military detention, even in cases of U.S. citizens held in the United States.  It’s a blunt instrument of a holding.  While a number of issues were before the Court, this post looks at the Bivens part of the decision and identifies a few errors in the Court’s reasoning.   The Fourth Circuit overreads Supreme Court precedents on Bivens dealing with the military and ignores Congress’s clear intention to preserve Bivens for citizens in its post-9/11 activity in the field of national security.

Read More

6

Hammontree v. Jenner: The Rest of the Story

Schoolhouse Ruins, Metropolis, NV

I recently picked up 120 Torts and Criminal Procedure examinations, which I must grade before the holidays.  In a related story, this will be my last guest-blogger post on the site.  Thanks to Gerard, Frank, and my other hosts for their hospitality, and to the readers of this blog for their patience.  It’s been fun, at least for me.

I’ll wrap up with another Paul Harvey “here’s the rest of the story” narrative, which may be useful to those of you who teach Torts. (The rest of you will probably want to skip this one.)  This entry will discuss Hammontree v. Jenner, a 1971 California Court of Appeal decision.

The Hammontree court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that strict liability, instead of negligence, should govern a tort suit stemming from a driver’s unanticipated seizure behind the wheel.  Unlike Summers v. Tice, which I discussed in a previous post, Hammontree has not cast a substantial precedential shadow. The appellate opinion is short, and gives little sign that the court considered the issue presented to be especially difficult.

The significance of the Hammontree decision derives from its leadoff spot in Franklin, Rabin & Green’s casebook Tort Law and Alternatives, which I use in my Torts class (I’ve spoken to both the defense attorney at trial in Hammontree and the defense attorney on appeal; both were quite surprised that the case found its way into a textbook.)  The authors leverage the case in a variety of ways, using it to introduce the distinction between strict liability and negligence, along with themes such as legal ethics, the mechanics of a tort case, and the nature of precedent.

Last year, I went down to Los Angeles court archives and dug up copies of the original court filings in Hammontree for the use of my students, and others.   If anyone is interested in these documents (I find it quite helpful to show novice one-L students what a complaint, answer, motion for summary judgment, etc., look like, which goes a long way toward demystifying these documents), I’ve given them to Christopher Robinette over at the TortsProf blog, who kindly has posted them here.

The documents didn’t contain any big surprises, but they did harbor a few facts that may be interesting and useful to those of you who teach the case.  Now that I’ve scared off (or bored to death) 99 percent of this blog’s readers, I’ll explain to the hardy few who remain, after the jump.

Read More