COVID-19 Tort Reform

In 2020 and 2021, 44 states and Washington, D.C. passed laws that limited tort liability related to COVID-19. The most common reforms immunized health care providers from malpractice or similar liability. A second category is limited liability to individuals or businesses for exposing others to the novel coronavirus. And a third category protected manufacturers of supplies used to detect and prevent COVID- 19 from products liability suits. The goals of these reforms included protecting health care providers from uncertainty in providing care for a novel disease, limiting the macroeconomic consequences of the pandemic, and encouraging the distribution of critical supplies to avoid shortages. States providing immunity assumed that institutions and individuals alike would react to reforms, as theory predicts, by engaging in more of the immunized activities. In general, the literature supports the assumption that institutions, like hospitals or manufacturers of face masks and COVID-19 tests, change their behavior in response to tort reform. Yet there is little empirical evidence demonstrating how tort law affects risk-taking by individuals. The lack of evidence about the relationship between tort law and individual decision-making is of broad interest, as one of the primary goals of tort law is to incentivize efficient levels of risk-taking. This Article provides novel empirical evidence on the effects of COVID-19 tort reform on public health. The analysis yields three important results. First, it shows that medical liability reforms had counterproductive public health effects. States that immunized health care providers from tort suits arising out of COVID-19 care experienced 20% more COVID-19 cases and 5% more COVID-19 hospitalizations. Second, the results demonstrate that exposure reforms counterintuitively decreased COVID-19 cases by making it easier for businesses and other institutions to require customers to comply with public health guidance. Third, the results reveal that tort law had very little effect, if any, on the precautions individuals chose to avoid contracting or spreading the disease. The third result is broadly interesting, as it indicates that tort law will be a weak incentive to individuals whenever they are choosing a level of care that can protect themselves or others

Introduction: The Effects of Selection Method on Public Officials

State and local governments have long struggled to design optimal mechanisms for selecting public officials. Centuries of experimentation have left us with several techniques: election (partisan or otherwise), political appointment, or selection by some kind of technocratic commission. Despite our extensive experience with these systems, no consensus has emerged as to which system is best under what circumstances. Several questions remain unclear: What effect does selection method have on the quality of services that public officials provide? Does selection method systematically affect the ideological composition of officials? If so, does that effect matter? And what determines whether a jurisdiction adopts a particular method of judicial selection in the first instance? The articles that follow make important contributions to our understanding of each of these issues. In Adjudicating Death: Professionals or Politicians?, Professors Stephen Choi and Mitu Gulati investigate whether professional medical examiners or elected coroners provide better autopsy services. Their study parallels the long running debate in the legal literature (which includes Professor Brian Fitzpatrick\u27s piece in this Symposium) about whether appointed or elected judges better serve the public. Choi and Gulati hypothesize that professional medical examiners will make fewer errors and be more independent than their elected counterparts but may be driven more by self-interest than elected officials. To determine whether a quality differential exists, the authors compare autopsy quantities, accreditation by the National Association of Medical Examiners, and litigation in states that have professional examiners to states that have elected coroners. The results are striking-elected coroners perform fewer autopsies, are less likely to be accredited, and are more likely to be sued. Their results bolster claims across the legal literature that professionals implement better policy than their elected counterparts

COVID-19 Tort Reform

In 2020 and 2021, 44 states and Washington, D.C. passed laws that limited tort liability related to COVID-19. The most common reforms immunized health care providers from malpractice or similar liability. A second category is limited liability to individuals or businesses for exposing others to the novel coronavirus. And a third category protected manufacturers of supplies used to detect and prevent COVID- 19 from products liability suits. The goals of these reforms included protecting health care providers from uncertainty in providing care for a novel disease, limiting the macroeconomic consequences of the pandemic, and encouraging the distribution of critical supplies to avoid shortages. States providing immunity assumed that institutions and individuals alike would react to reforms, as theory predicts, by engaging in more of the immunized activities. In general, the literature supports the assumption that institutions, like hospitals or manufacturers of face masks and COVID-19 tests, change their behavior in response to tort reform. Yet there is little empirical evidence demonstrating how tort law affects risk-taking by individuals. The lack of evidence about the relationship between tort law and individual decision-making is of broad interest, as one of the primary goals of tort law is to incentivize efficient levels of risk-taking. This Article provides novel empirical evidence on the effects of COVID-19 tort reform on public health. The analysis yields three important results. First, it shows that medical liability reforms had counterproductive public health effects. States that immunized health care providers from tort suits arising out of COVID-19 care experienced 20% more COVID-19 cases and 5% more COVID-19 hospitalizations. Second, the results demonstrate that exposure reforms counterintuitively decreased COVID-19 cases by making it easier for businesses and other institutions to require customers to comply with public health guidance. Third, the results reveal that tort law had very little effect, if any, on the precautions individuals chose to avoid contracting or spreading the disease. The third result is broadly interesting, as it indicates that tort law will be a weak incentive to individuals whenever they are choosing a level of care that can protect themselves or others

The Specific Consumer Expectations Test for Product Defects

In this Article, we propose that courts adopt an amended version of the consumer expectations test that we call the “specific consumer expectations test.” The specific consumer expectations test would apply to any product or product component for which consumers have clear, articulable ex ante expectations about the function of the product. Under the specific consumer expectations test, a defendant is liable if consumers expected such a product to reduce a particular risk, and the product in fact increased that risk. Similarly, if a product was intended to convey a particular benefit, but in fact harmed consumers along the same dimension, the test is violated. For example, if defective airbags increased the risk of injury after a motor-vehicle crash rather than decreased the risk, that product would be deemed defective under the specific consumer expectations test. By shifting the law’s focus from measuring the magnitude of consumer expectations to a simpler identification of the direction that consumers expected risks to change, the specific expectations test increases the administrability of products liability law and captures most of the incentives that the traditional consumer expectations test could theoretically provide. In particular, firms are incentivized to produce products that never increase risks unexpectedly, and consumers are empowered to purchase products which reflect their willingness to pay for risks. In cases where consumers lack specific expectations, we argue that courts should apply the risk-utility test to minimize unanticipated accident costs to consumers and firms. We bolster our analysis with a novel experiment that demonstrates that the specific expectations test is consistent with the preferences of actual consumers. Our incentive-compatible experiment asked subjects to make consumption decisions over various risky products and determine punishments for the firms that manufacture defective products. The results reveal that individuals demand substantially greater punishments for firms that manufacture products that violate specific expectations. But, before the defect has manifested, consumers are willing to tolerate prospective defect risks in general as well as defects that would cause a product to perform the opposite of its intended function. It is after the defect has occurred that consumers display greater outrage with respect to product defects that impose harms that are the opposite of the intended function of the product or product component. Taken together, these results indicate that the specific expectations test would deter manufacturers from making defective products in the exact circumstances where consumers suffer the greatest harms from product defects, and the test would permit consumers to choose when to consume dangerous products without producers risking ex post liability

COVID-19 Tort Reform

In 2020 and 2021, 44 states and Washington, D.C. passed laws that limited tort liability related to COVID-19. The most common reforms immunized health care providers from malpractice or similar liability. A second category is limited liability to individuals or businesses for exposing others to the novel coronavirus. And a third category protected manufacturers of supplies used to detect and prevent COVID- 19 from products liability suits. The goals of these reforms included protecting health care providers from uncertainty in providing care for a novel disease, limiting the macroeconomic consequences of the pandemic, and encouraging the distribution of critical supplies to avoid shortages. States providing immunity assumed that institutions and individuals alike would react to reforms, as theory predicts, by engaging in more of the immunized activities. In general, the literature supports the assumption that institutions, like hospitals or manufacturers of face masks and COVID-19 tests, change their behavior in response to tort reform. Yet there is little empirical evidence demonstrating how tort law affects risk-taking by individuals. The lack of evidence about the relationship between tort law and individual decision-making is of broad interest, as one of the primary goals of tort law is to incentivize efficient levels of risk-taking. This Article provides novel empirical evidence on the effects of COVID-19 tort reform on public health. The analysis yields three important results. First, it shows that medical liability reforms had counterproductive public health effects. States that immunized health care providers from tort suits arising out of COVID-19 care experienced 20% more COVID-19 cases and 5% more COVID-19 hospitalizations. Second, the results demonstrate that exposure reforms counterintuitively decreased COVID-19 cases by making it easier for businesses and other institutions to require customers to comply with public health guidance. Third, the results reveal that tort law had very little effect, if any, on the precautions individuals chose to avoid contracting or spreading the disease. The third result is broadly interesting, as it indicates that tort law will be a weak incentive to individuals whenever they are choosing a level of care that can protect themselves or others

The Customer Is Not Always Right: Balancing Worker and Customer Welfare in Antitrust Law

This Note analyzes how courts\u27 leniency affects a particular category of anticompetitive buyer conduct: agreements between employers that restrict competition in labor markets. If, as courts and commentators generally agree, the goal of antitrust law is to promote the welfare of consumers, how should courts balance the welfare of workers and customers under antitrust analysis? Arguably, worker welfare should be included in consumer welfare. If so, anticompetitive agreements between employers benefit one subset of consumers (customers), while hurting another subset (workers). The persistent procustomer and antiworker effect of such complicates a court\u27s choice to find conduct per se unreasonable or to apply the rule of reason under section 1 of the Sherman Act. Further, it calls into question how to balance procompetitive and anticompetitive effects of agreements subject to rule of reason analysis

The Customer Is Not Always Right: Balancing Worker and Customer Welfare in Antitrust Law

A natural consequence of employer restraints of trade that decrease wages is lower prices. Under antitrust law, courts evaluate most such restraints of trade under the rule of reason. This Note argues that the rule of reason’s focus on consumer welfare and the natural price decrease that follows from employer restraints of trade cause underenforcement of antitrust law against anticompetitive employer conduct. Such a result is anomalous, because the consumer welfare standard that permeates antitrust law should protect employees as much as customers that purchase goods. To solve the under-enforcement problem, this Note proposes that courts analyzing a restraint of trade that plausibly affects two different markets should focus on the welfare of the employees or customers that the restraint directly affects. If the net anticompetitive effects in that market are de minimis, then the court should consider the competitive effects in other markets. This worker-first approach would ensure that defendant-employers could not use price cuts to justify anticompetitive conduct that harms workers

The Specific Consumer Expectations Test for Product Defects

In this Article, we propose that courts adopt an amended version of the consumer expectations test that we call the “specific consumer expectations test.” The specific consumer expectations test would apply to any product or product component for which consumers have clear, articulable ex ante expectations about the function of the product. Under the specific consumer expectations test, a defendant is liable if consumers expected such a product to reduce a particular risk, and the product in fact increased that risk. Similarly, if a product was intended to convey a particular benefit, but in fact harmed consumers along the same dimension, the test is violated. For example, if defective airbags increased the risk of injury after a motor-vehicle crash rather than decreased the risk, that product would be deemed defective under the specific consumer expectations test. By shifting the law’s focus from measuring the magnitude of consumer expectations to a simpler identification of the direction that consumers expected risks to change, the specific expectations test increases the administrability of products liability law and captures most of the incentives that the traditional consumer expectations test could theoretically provide. In particular, firms are incentivized to produce products that never increase risks unexpectedly, and consumers are empowered to purchase products which reflect their willingness to pay for risks. In cases where consumers lack specific expectations, we argue that courts should apply the risk-utility test to minimize unanticipated accident costs to consumers and firms. We bolster our analysis with a novel experiment that demonstrates that the specific expectations test is consistent with the preferences of actual consumers. Our incentive-compatible experiment asked subjects to make consumption decisions over various risky products and determine punishments for the firms that manufacture defective products. The results reveal that individuals demand substantially greater punishments for firms that manufacture products that violate specific expectations. But, before the defect has manifested, consumers are willing to tolerate prospective defect risks in general as well as defects that would cause a product to perform the opposite of its intended function. It is after the defect has occurred that consumers display greater outrage with respect to product defects that impose harms that are the opposite of the intended function of the product or product component. Taken together, these results indicate that the specific expectations test would deter manufacturers from making defective products in the exact circumstances where consumers suffer the greatest harms from product defects, and the test would permit consumers to choose when to consume dangerous products without producers risking ex post liability

The Specific Consumer Expectations Test for Product Defects

In this Article, we propose that courts adopt an amended version of the consumer expectations test that we call the “specific consumer expectations test.” The specific consumer expectations test would apply to any product or product component for which consumers have clear, articulable ex ante expectations about the function of the product. Under the specific consumer expectations test, a defendant is liable if consumers expected such a product to reduce a particular risk, and the product in fact increased that risk. Similarly, if a product was intended to convey a particular benefit, but in fact harmed consumers along the same dimension, the test is violated. For example, if defective airbags increased the risk of injury after a motor-vehicle crash rather than decreased the risk, that product would be deemed defective under the specific consumer expectations test. By shifting the law’s focus from measuring the magnitude of consumer expectations to a simpler identification of the direction that consumers expected risks to change, the specific expectations test increases the administrability of products liability law and captures most of the incentives that the traditional consumer expectations test could theoretically provide. In particular, firms are incentivized to produce products that never increase risks unexpectedly, and consumers are empowered to purchase products which reflect their willingness to pay for risks. In cases where consumers lack specific expectations, we argue that courts should apply the risk-utility test to minimize unanticipated accident costs to consumers and firms. We bolster our analysis with a novel experiment that demonstrates that the specific expectations test is consistent with the preferences of actual consumers. Our incentive-compatible experiment asked subjects to make consumption decisions over various risky products and determine punishments for the firms that manufacture defective products. The results reveal that individuals demand substantially greater punishments for firms that manufacture products that violate specific expectations. But, before the defect has manifested, consumers are willing to tolerate prospective defect risks in general as well as defects that would cause a product to perform the opposite of its intended function. It is after the defect has occurred that consumers display greater outrage with respect to product defects that impose harms that are the opposite of the intended function of the product or product component. Taken together, these results indicate that the specific expectations test would deter manufacturers from making defective products in the exact circumstances where consumers suffer the greatest harms from product defects, and the test would permit consumers to choose when to consume dangerous products without producers risking ex post liability