As a former practitioner in the field of complex products liability cases, I try to incorporate some of the complexity of mass tort and products liability cases into the first year Torts experience. The reasons for this are threefold: 1. Students crave, and can profit from, an explanation of how modern problems with which they are familiar (from their own experiences and from the popular press) are handled by the Torts doctrine about which they are learning; providing them with a glimpse of how torts doctrine has evolved to handle complex cases enhances the relevance of the historical materials. 2. Students come to Torts, perhaps more so than in other courses, with preconceived notions of "right," "responsibility," and "fault;" exposing them to some of the very cases about which they have opinions exposes those preconceived notions to open inspection and evaluation. 3. The complex mass tort and product liability cases expose the strengths and weaknesses in our system of adjudication and enable students to better understand the trade-offs the judicial system makes in deciding how cases are resolved. By giving students exposure to the issues in these cases, they can explore more deeply what informs their own sense of what fair and just adjudication means to contrast with what they are learning about the tort system.

I incorporate high profile complex cases into my Torts course. I have collected a number of articles and general literature on recent cases with which the students will likely be familiar: pharmaceutical cases, tobacco litigation, gun manufacturer liability and the like. While the issues may appear substantively too complex for One-Ls, the larger questions of "on whom should loss fall" and "on what basis should liability attach," can be profitably discussed and the differences between strict liability, negligence and intentional tort outlined. As the semester progresses, I return to the chosen situation to address a variety of topics including the effect of federal legislation/regulation, causation problems, apportionment and joint tortfeasor liability, legislative vs. judicial solutions to dispute resolution, and alternative dispute resolution methods. I will have some handouts to provide to the participants including an outline of issues that can be addressed with complex cases and some of the articles that I have used to facilitate the discussion.

1. Introduction

   1. Why incorporate complex cases into an already complex First Year?

   2. Exposing student preconceptions of "right" and "responsibility"

   3. The Torts course as focus on balancing the interests of disparate groups

   4. The changing role of the judge/judicial process participants in resolving tort cases

2. What complex cases?

   1. Toxic exposure cases

   2. Tobacco/gun manufacturer liability

   3. Pharmaceutical case

   4. Mass disaster cases: building fires, railroad/transportation accidents

3. How to incorporate the issues

   1. What makes the cases complex

   2. Introducing the issues and exploring the roles of lawyer/judge/jury/legislator

   3. Exploring who should bear the loss from tortious conduct

   4. Focus on the evolution of doctrine to meet changing societal needs-

      • from trespass to railroad accidents to automobile accidents to toxic waste accidents to mass exposure accidents;
        
      • from traditional rules of causation to expanded notions of proportional and proximate causation and;
        
      • from traditional rules of damage to expanded notions of damage;
        
      • from understanding the foundation of torts as individualistic to collectivist
        

   5. Focus on the changing expectations of society from mass tort events

   6. Focus on the dispute resolution mechanisms available and necessary to resolve the cases equitably

4. Conclusion: The interplay between tort foundations, society's expectations and process limitations