I would like to propose a session entitled Teaching Torts in the Post-McDonald's Era. One of the challenges in teaching torts now is overcoming the bias students feel against plaintiffs, their lawyers, and the tort system generally. Since Shakespeare's time and before, lawyers have been the butt of jokes and the target of hostility. But in my almost twenty years of teaching Torts, I have seen a much more focused antagonism develop in students, an attitude that is dismissive of claims for personal injury, attorneys who litigate those claims, and the tort system generally. Others, e.g. , Deborah Rhode in a 1998 article, seem to perceive a similar trend, so my experience may not be isolated. This hostility isn't all due to the McDonald's case, of course. Our students are increasingly educated in a world that cultivates hostility to the whole notion of compensation for injury. They encounter print ads deriding personal injury claims in magazines, political campaigns designed to whip up public sentiment against torts and tort lawyers, and popular press that, not unexpectedly, relishes telling the most outrageous stories.

The bias our students bring to the classroom surfaces in many ways. Students can be insensitive to injuries people suffer, displaying a callousness unbecoming to anyone thinking of entering a service profession. They can be reluctant to see both sides of an issue, defeating their own goals of developing crucial lawyering skills. They at times bring a hostility to certain legal doctrines, such as comparative fault, that is almost incomprehensible to anyone who actually understands concepts like contributory negligence. Of course, there is plenty to criticize in the tort system, and I am anything but an apologist for the status quo. The point is that most of what there is to criticize demands an ability to get beyond that initial uncomprehending resistance to the tort system.

The challenge is to give students the emotional and intellectual balance to become knowledgeable critics of the system, not shills for the defense bar. At the same time, one can't overcompensate by becoming a dogmatic defender of the fault system because there is much to criticize. If selected to do a poster session, my time would be spent talking about how we, as Torts teachers, can meet this challenge.

This is a topic sure to provoke many thoughts and suggestions from the participants. My suggestions, in a nutshell, focus on careful selection of curriculum and additions to the class that counter student bias. Handouts for the session will identify particular sections of major casebooks that are particularly good at dispelling assumptions about torts plaintiffs and their lawyers. Coverage of certain issues like damages, contingent fees and tort reform, brings immediate enhanced understanding. My colleague Larry Levine and I typically assign a number of supplemental readings on these topics. I have had success inviting plaintiff's attorneys to come and explain a case where they litigated a difficult duty question. On another occasion, a defense attorney spontaneously told a class that California's cap on pain and suffering was unconscionable. Films, radio reports on torts and lawyering issues, and exercises where students represent the injured party, can all add to the depth students bring to the issues.

1. Short mock socratic dialogue about a case, illustrating the attitude that is the topic of this poster session.

2. Sample print ads illustrating political indoctrination against personal injury plaintiffs.

3. Citations to sections in numerous casebooks that I view as particularly useful vehicles to address the issue.

4. A list of clips accessible on National Public Radio website that deal with torts/lawyering issues and promote balance and understanding.

5. A list of law review articles, and articles in the public press, that touch on the topic.