\u3ci\u3ePalazzolo, Lucas\u3c/i\u3e, and \u3ci\u3ePenn Central\u3c/i\u3e: The Need for Pragmatism, Symbolism, and Ad Hoc Balancing

I. Two Perspectives on Opinions: Symbolic and Managerial II. Penn Central and the Ad Hoc Balancing Approach: Pragmatic Triumph of Symbol ... A. Reasons for Approach: Complexity and Lack of Independent Definition of Property ... B. Effects of Approach: Delegation and Uncertainty III. Lucas and the Categorical Total Takings Test: Symbol in the Guise of Managerial Categories ... A. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council … B. Vagueness of the Test ... 1. Recognition of Problems in Lucas … 2. Treatment of Problems in Lucas … a. Summary ... b. Preexisting Rights and Limits ... C. Narrowness of the Test .... D. Conclusion: Symbolic Nature of the Test IV. Impact of the Total Takings Test: Managerial Failure as a Result of Uncertainty and Limited Effect ... A. Cases Illustrating Treatment of Issues Raised by Test ... 1. Denominator Problems ... 2. Value of Permitted Uses ... 3. Pre-existing Rights and Limits ... a. Approaches ... b. Discussion ... B. Case Study: South Carolina ... C. Random Selection of Cases Citing Lucas V. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island: The Limits of Categorical Tests and Advantages of Ad Hoc Balancing ... A. Facts and Procedural History ... B. Supreme Court Decision ... C. Impact VI. Conclusio

Sophisticated Robots : Balancing Liability, Regulation, and Innovation

Our lives are being transformed by large, mobile, sophisticated robots with increasingly higher levels of autonomy, intelligence, and interconnectivity among themselves. For example, driverless automobiles are likely to become commercially available within a decade. Many people who suffer physical injuries from these robots will seek legal redress for their injury, and regulatory schemes are likely to impose requirements on the field to reduce the number and severity of injuries. This Article addresses the issue of whether the current liability and regulatory systems provide a fair, efficient method for balancing the concern for physical safety against the need to incentivize the innovation that is necessary to develop these robots. This Article provides context for analysis by reviewing innovation and robots\u27 increasing size, mobility, autonomy, intelligence, and interconnections in terms of safety—particularly in terms of physical interaction with humans—and by summarizing the current legal framework for addressing personal injuries in terms of doctrine, application, and underlying policies. This Article argues that the legal system\u27s method of addressing physical injury from robotic machines that interact closely with humans provides an appropriate balance of innovation and liability for personal injury. It critiques claims that the system is flawed and needs fundamental change and concludes that the legal system will continue to fairly and efficiently foster the innovation of reasonably safe sophisticated robots

\u3ci\u3ePalazzolo, Lucas\u3c/i\u3e, and \u3ci\u3ePenn Central\u3c/i\u3e: The Need for Pragmatism, Symbolism, and Ad Hoc Balancing

I. Two Perspectives on Opinions: Symbolic and Managerial II. Penn Central and the Ad Hoc Balancing Approach: Pragmatic Triumph of Symbol ... A. Reasons for Approach: Complexity and Lack of Independent Definition of Property ... B. Effects of Approach: Delegation and Uncertainty III. Lucas and the Categorical Total Takings Test: Symbol in the Guise of Managerial Categories ... A. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council … B. Vagueness of the Test ... 1. Recognition of Problems in Lucas … 2. Treatment of Problems in Lucas … a. Summary ... b. Preexisting Rights and Limits ... C. Narrowness of the Test .... D. Conclusion: Symbolic Nature of the Test IV. Impact of the Total Takings Test: Managerial Failure as a Result of Uncertainty and Limited Effect ... A. Cases Illustrating Treatment of Issues Raised by Test ... 1. Denominator Problems ... 2. Value of Permitted Uses ... 3. Pre-existing Rights and Limits ... a. Approaches ... b. Discussion ... B. Case Study: South Carolina ... C. Random Selection of Cases Citing Lucas V. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island: The Limits of Categorical Tests and Advantages of Ad Hoc Balancing ... A. Facts and Procedural History ... B. Supreme Court Decision ... C. Impact VI. Conclusio