John G. Fleming

The law of torts

Introduction. Intentional invasions of interests in persons and property. Intentional interference with economic interests. Negligent invasions of interests in persons and property and economic interests. Invasions of interests in persons and property where intentional or negligent conduct need not always be proved. Interests in reputation - defamation. Misuse of process. Trading. Business and other economic interests. Remedies and parties.

The American tort process

The tort system in general perspective judicial activism constitutionality the jury the gladiators legal costs mass torts.

Drug injury compensation plans

The Thalidomide tragedy of the early 1960s left a searing and cataclysmic impression on the public mind throughout the world.1 In its aftermath public sorrow and anger became widely engaged over the question of compensating the pitiful victims of the ill-fated drug and helped to mobilize concern for the future provision of drug-related injuries.2 So far three countries-West Germany, Sweden and Japan-have enacted special statutes to this end. I propose to discuss, first, these three special plans, each of which reflects a different compensation technique typical of the countrys legal culture, and second, the transcendent question as to the legitimacy of singling out for preferential treatment this particular group of the disabled.

The impact of inflation on tort compensation

The catastrophic bout of inflation which rocked the world economy in the early 1970s, in the shadow of the Vietnam War and the precipitous rise of petroleum prices, brought into sharper relief, amidst so many other social problems, a long-standing concern over safeguarding awards for tort victims against the always-creeping and now-galloping erosion of purchasing power. One may, if so minded, count it as one of the few benefits of this melancholy experience that the law in many countries was in consequence impelled to overcome its traditional inertia and unflinchingly confront that pressing issue. The great variety of responses, reflecting legal-institutional as well as ideological differences, merits the attention of comparative lawyers now that a fairly clear pattern has emerged.