Educational Malpractice: When Can Johnny Sue?

This comment explores three avenues to pursue educational malpractice suits. First, a negligence action for malpractice. Second, a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. And finally, an action sounding in negligence for breach of statutory duty. Each avenue is explored in detail in terms of the likelihood of success. Importantly, the comment recognizes the inherent difficult of pursuing any education malpractice claim

New York Attorney Malpractice Liability to Non-Clients: Toward a Rule of Reason & Predictability

This 1995 Article addresses the question of attorney liability in New York. It begins with a brief introduction to the history of the privity requirement nationally to place the New York question in context. It then traces the scope of attorney liability in New York and examines the state of that law - with its contradictions and inconsistences. This Article proposes a rule for New York courts to consider that centers on the “adversariness” of the client and the third party as the touchstone for determining if expanded liability is appropriate.This differs from the traditional analysis which bases the extent of non-client liability, if any, on the relationship between the attorney’s intentions and the third party. In proposing this rule, the paper reviews the approaches taken in other jurisdictions to determine what, if anything should be borrowed from those rules in creating New York’s standard. The proposed solution weighs the dangers of expanding liability against the dangers of refusing to expand liability and tries to balance those considerations in a way that fairly balances the interests of the legal profession, the clients, the public, and the injured third parties

A Reexamination of \u3ci\u3eGlanzer v. Shepard\u3c/i\u3e: Surveyors on the Tort- Contract Boundary

In international commodity transactions, intermediary certifiers of quantity and quality play a crucial role. Sometimes they err, and when they do, the aggrieved party can pursue remedies against the counterparty or against the intermediary, either in contract or tort. The remedy against the intermediary has depended, at least in part, on whether the plaintiff was in privity. Even absent privity, the aggrieved party could possibly recover in tort (or perhaps as a third-party beneficiary). So held Cardozo in the leading New York case Glanzer v. Shepard. Section I of this paper reviews the Glanzer litigation, with special emphasis on how the court suppressed many of the significant facts. Section II then turns to restitution by the principals. Section III explores the courts\u27 general hostility to intermediaries\u27 attempts to limit their liability by contract, and Section IV considers the judiciary\u27s sporadic efforts to place extra-contractual limits on intermediaries\u27 liability. Section V examines the surveyors\u27 response