Negligence and Liability Without Fault in Tort Law

Though negligence is emphasized as a basis for determining liability in tort law, Professor Peck points out that liability without fault has always played a major role in that area and, in fact, underlies most torts which are recognized today. After examining these types of torts and distilling some general principles governing the application of liability without fault, he concludes that these principles are also applicable to automobile accident litigation, thus predicting the demise of negligence as a principle of liability in that field

Some Kind of Hearing for Persons Discharged from Private Employment

The speaker suggests the possibility of the law developing a requirement for some kind of hearing for all persons discharged from employment, including private employment. Currently, private employment is terminable at will and without cause by either party unless there is an express understanding to the contrary. However, many government employees are protected from termination without cause by a civil service law or the Constitution. The speaker suggests that this contrast between private and public employment is not justified and therefore may lead to stricter requirements on terminating private employees

Labor Law

Covers the Washington minimum wage and hour act

Comparative Negligence and Automobile Liability Insurance

The purpose of this article is not to re-plow the ground of history, case law, and statutory developments which has been so competently tilled by others. Nor is the purpose to give a detailed consideration of each of the practical matters mentioned above. Instead, the focus of this article is on the relationship between comparative negligence and automobile liability insurance. Insurance rates and accident statistics, rather than rules of law and cases, are the primary materials. Such a consideration of the subject it might be hoped would give a positive and substantiated answer to the frequently debated but never documented question of whether adoption of comparative negligence would result in an increase in automobile liability insurance premium rates. As will appear, however, such precision does not seem to be possible. Nevertheless it does appear possible to draw some meaningful conclusions about the limits within or extent to which comparative negligence does affect premium rates, if indeed it has any effect. The insurance statistics also contain information with respect to the effect of comparative negligence in stimulating the filing of claims and the size of claim settlements. Further observations may be made with respect to the frequently expressed view that even in states in which the contributory negligence rule prevails comparative negligence is in fact practiced by all concerned, including adjusters, attorneys, juries, and even judges. In this way it is hoped something will be added to the information available for evaluation of the practical considerations which appear to control the decision to adopt or reject a comparative negligence standard in lieu of the contributory negligence rule

NLRB Election Law

A book review essay considering Union Representation Elections: Law and Reality, by Julius G. Getman, Stephen B. Goldberg, and Jeanne B. Herman (1976)

A Proposal to End NLRB Deferral to the Arbitration Process

In January 1984 the NLRB, reconstituted by President Reagan\u27s appointees, announced significant changes in the Board\u27s policies concerning deferral to the arbitration processes established by employers and unions in their collective bargaining agreements. The new policies are redolent with the politics of a changed administration rather than expertise in labor relations. The changes continue the Board\u27s uncertain treatment of the relationship between its jurisdiction to prevent unfair labor practices and arbitrators\u27 decisions concerning collective bargaining agreements. The newly announced policies are consistent with the conviction that the federal government should sharply reduce its regulatory activities, transferring its previous responsibilities to local governments or private initiative. These policies are also consistent with a view that labor unions are not desirable institutions that deserve protection to ensure their continued existence and growth. They reflect a buoyant optimism that, despite the problems associated with unbridled pursuit of self-interest, all will go well if government will only go away. There certainly will be judicial challenges to, and probably rejection of, at least portions of the new policies. The certainty of judicial review thus makes it appropriate to reconsider the entire policy of Board deferral to the arbitration process. This article is such a reconsideration and proposes that courts should no longer permit the Board to pursue a policy of deferral. Primary responsibility for development of the policy governing the relationship between the prevention of unfair labor practices and the arbitration process should be placed upon the General Counsel of the NLRB, who now in fact makes the decisions and thus produces the law in action even under Board announced policies. Questions of deferral have arisen in part because of the unsatisfactory state of the law concerning the duty to bargain during the term of a collective bargaining agreement. The present law suggests that actions taken, usually by employers, may be either violations of the duty to bargain or violations of the collective bargaining agreement. The proposed clarification of the law will eliminate that apparent overlapping of jurisdictions. Other questions now considered under the rubric of deferral would be better treated simply as evidentiary matters to be considered in determining whether a complaint should issue on an unfair labor practice charge. The General Counsel, whose office is an administrative agency for the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act, should use rule-making procedures to promulgate the rules concerning the effect of a prior arbitration award in determining whether a complaint shall issue. This would not ensure judicial review of refusals to issue complaints based upon an assessment of evidentiary matters in every case, but it would offer the opportunity for review of the policies followed by the General Counsel with respect to arbitration awards. The General Counsel should also publish at least a representative sample of arbitration decisions found to justify the dismissal of charges

Personal Property

Covers the Unclaimed Personal Property Act

Labor Law

Covers the Washington minimum wage and hour act