Tort reformers commonly equate "enterprise liability" with strict products liability and other expansive tort developments of recent decades. Damages reform and no-fault alternatives are, in turn, seen as a repudiation of a failed theory of enterprise liability. In contrast, the authors demonstrate that both strict product liability and no-fault compensation plans are a product of the enterprise liability theory first articulated early in this century by Leon Green and Karl Llewellyn. As the theory of enterprise liability matured, damages reform became an integral part of the enterprise liability agenda, establishing that both no-fault and damages reform are an aspect, not a repudiation, of enterprise liability theory.
This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact.
Traditional corporation law (or "entity" law) no longer covers the challenges presented by today's multinational corporate integration and control. Now, Blumberg's ground-breaking analysis of the law of corporate groups (or...
... liability in encouraging business activity are outweighed by the costs doing so imposes on individuals who deal with the firm.83 Clearly, however, not all those who deal with the corporation need or will receive this protection.
Medical malpractice attorneys, take note: this landmark work by an experienced attorney physician shows you in detail how to direct medical malpractice litigation against the parties who are actually responsible...
It must be noted that Johnston predates much of the modern development of the jurisprudence of the employment contract and, most pertinently, the evolution of the implied obligation of mutual trust and confidence and its role in ...
In the detailed reports in this book, the World Tort Law Society proves that it is in an ideal position to examine the most significant concepts.