 |
|
Program
|
 |
|
Conference on Torts: Conference Program
5:00-8:00 p.m. 5:30-7:30 p.m. 8:45-9:00 a.m.
Welcome Introduction 9:00-10:30 a.m. Margaret A. Berger, Brooklyn Law School The United States Supreme Court has proved to be a leader in the movement to require closer judicial scrutiny of putative expertise in tort cases. First in pharmaceutical product-liability cases and then across the board, the Supreme Court has turned the evidentiary permissiveness of the mid-Twentieth Century on its head. Congress and many state courts and legislatures have followed suit. Have the courts found workable criteria for this gate keeping function? How has it changed or constricted the rights of plaintiffs and defendants? Have the concerns over "junk science" which precipitated the Court's action been adequately addressed? 10:30-10:45 a.m. 10:45 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Barbara M. G. Lynn, Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, Texas How do lawyers argue and judges decide challenges to the admissibility of expert testimony after Daubert and Kumhoe Tire? In this session lawyers and judges will simulate a Daubert hearing
12:30-2:00 p.m. Edward R. Becker, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
2:15-4:15 p.m. Mass Tort Settlements after Amchem and Ortiz
Howard M. Erichson, Seton Hall University The Supreme Court has cast a strongly skeptical eye on mass tort litigation that attempts to resolve simultaneously the rights of present and future claimants. Nonetheless, as new mass torts continue to emerge, and as Congress continues to decline to intervene, the pressure to attain such settlements at the trial court level remains intense. What options for mass resolution are still available under the Court's decisions? How aggressive a role should courts play in scrutinizing settlements? What does the future hold for the judicial resolution of mass torts? How do rules governing aggregate settlement affect the resolution of non-class group action?
9:00-10:45 a.m. Michael C. Dorf, Columbia University It is a basic premise of our legal system that state legislation trumps state common law. Nonetheless, a number of state high courts have invalidated tort reform statutes on state constitutional grounds, even as others have held that such intervention amounts to the revival of illegitimate "Lochnerism". Are there constitutional limits on tort reform? Can they be articulated in a principled manner that sets limits on legislative action while still recognizing a legitimate sphere of remedial legislation?
10:45-11:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m.-12:45 p.m. Roderick Maltman Hills, Jr., The University of Michigan The United States Supreme Court appears to be increasingly willing to adopt arguments that state tort actions are preempted by the existence of overlapping federal regulation. To what extent have these decisions quietly affected national tort reform? Is ex ante regulation and adequate substitute for remedial causes of action? Are there any meaningful federal constitutional limits on Congress's power to preempt state tort law?
12:45-2:15 p.m. Kenneth R. Feinberg, Esq., The Feinberg Group, Washington, D.C.
2:15-2:30 p.m. 2:30-4:30 p.m. Valerie P. Hans, Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware Traditionally, tort damages were almost exclusively the province of the jury. Yet, in a steady line of decisions, the Supreme Court has made clear that it wishes to foster a constitutional common law of punitive damages, under which trial and appellate courts will closely monitor and frequently adjust jury awards. By contrast, the Court in Gasperini held that vigorous federal appellate review of compensatory damages would amount to an unconstitutional invasion of the jury's province. Meanwhile, state courts and legislators have imposed various procedural and substantive limits on jury discretion in awarding both punitive and compensatory damages. What is the impact of these developments on settlements and jury awards? To what extent will the hope of a rationalized law of punitive damages be realized? Is there a place left for large punitive awards as punishment for wrongful conduct? Gasperini not withstanding, to what degree will the concern for judicial control of punitive awards spill over into other areas, such as damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress?
5:15-7:00 p.m. 9:00-11:00 a.m. The Discovery Wars: Combat on the Products Liability Front
Defense Lawyer Ethics Tort Issues and Punitive Recoveries for Failure to Produce Documents Law & Economics Plaintiff Lawyer Moderator: Richard L. Marcus, University of California, Hastings
11:00-11:15 a.m. 11:15 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Negotiation Exercise for Introductory Torts Course Cultivating Sophisticated Critics of the Torts System Integrating Sexual Minority Issues into Torts Courses Enhancing the First Year Torts Experience with Complex Cases Domestic Violence as Intentional Torts: Incorporating Domestic Violence into the Torts Curriculum 12:30-2:00 p.m. 2:00-4:00 p.m. Guido Calabresi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, New Haven, Connecticut |
