Reforming Reprehensibility: The Continued Viability of Multiple Punitive Damages After State Farm v. Campbell

In this Article, the author discusses how the Supreme Court\u27s recent decision in State Farm v. Campbell reformed the reprehensibility analysis and how this reformation may have the perhaps unintended consequence of eliminating the practice of awarding total harm damages. In particular, in an effort to limit the size of individual punitive damage awards, Campbell limits the use of evidence of conduct directed at parties not before the court

The Struggle Over Tort Reform and the Overlooked Legacy of the Progressives

In attempting to distinguish the 1950s and 1960s tort expansion from the current tort retraction, the scholarly account depicts the tort expansion as primarily a judicial movement led by legal academics devoid of any self-interest. In contrast, this account holds out the current tort retraction as a mainly political movement driven by the economic self-interest of its proponents...First, contemporary tort reform, rather than solely being a reaction to tort expansion in the 1950s and 1960s, is part of a continuing debate between corporate, professional and insurance interests on one side and consumer interests and the trial bar on the other side. This debate began as early as the late Nineteenth Century and the interests and arguments advanced in the debate have remained relatively constant. Second, contrary to the academic construction, there is nothing new about the political nature of the current tort reform debate, nor was judicial involvement in the development of tort law unique to tort expansion. Rather, both sides of the debate have resorted to both the judicial and political branches in the battle over tort reform and political battles have been waged by interested actors on both sides. Third, as a result of this scholarly neglect of Progressive Era history, the debate about the validity of state tort reform measures has focused primarily on traditional areas of constitutional inquiry. Instead, a focus on Progressive Era history would direct one to several Progressive Era constitutional provisions aimed at altering the balance of power among the legislature, the judiciary and the jury with respect to common law tort remedies

Building Interdisciplinary Learning Partnerships

Capital University Law School & Grant Medical Center partnered to provide training on medical malpractice to law students and medical residents. The course utilized a unique, interdisciplinary approach to skills training & professional development. The course attempts to meet several needs: (1) Increase experiential learning opportunities to develop professional skills and judgment; (2) Provide authentic, experiential learning that is cost-effective and accessible to all law students, including non-traditional and part­time students; and (3) Promote interdisciplinary education.https://fuse.franklin.edu/ss2016/1066/thumbnail.jp