Domestic violence, according to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, is "the most common cause of nonfatal injury to women in the United States. Victims are pushed, punched, strangled, and assaulted with various weapons with the intent of causing pain, injury, and emotional distress." ¹ These actions are all intentional torts (as well as being crimes).

Teaching domestic violence as part of the first year torts course helps students to see the interaction between torts and insurance. Although domestic violence injury is very common, tort litigation seeking compensation for these injuries is very rare. One of the reasons for this is the 'intentional acts exclusion' in liability policies. Another reason for this is the less familiar, but equally important 'family member exclusion' in many homeowners' liability policies. This exclusion provides that the policies will not cover claims brought by family members against other family members. Even otherwise meritorious lawsuits are not brought because of these liability exclusions. This insight helps students see how insurance drives what tort claims are brought and not brought in other contexts as well.

A related insight arises in connection with statutes of limitation. Most statutes of limitation for intentional torts are shorter than for negligence and strict liability claims. This disparity also operates to bar otherwise meritorious claims. Students can explore why short statutes of limitation in this context may operate to bar domestic violence tort claims in particular. Another useful aspect of teaching domestic violence as part of the first year torts course is that it encourages thought and discussion about whether and to what extent the tort system deters harm-causing conduct. The widespread harm, coupled with the almost total lack of litigation seeking redress for that harm, shows that the tort system could not possibly be deterring in this area. Yet, if lawsuits were brought, would that deter domestic violence torts? Do tort litigation and the threat of tort litigation deter harmful conduct in other areas? Is the deterrence brought about by tort litigation and the threat of tort litigation different in the negligence and strict liability areas as opposed to the intentional tort area?

Through reading early cases endorsing, and then recent cases repudiating, interspousal immunity, students can compare the policy arguments endorsed by judges in various time periods, and the values that underlie the policy arguments. This gives students an opportunity to question the common law adjudication methodology in a more searching and pertinent way than many may find possible in other common law torts cases. It also teaches some important history lessons.

Further, teaching domestic violence as part of the torts course allows consideration of broader questions about the tort system. The statement is commonly made that the tort system is aimed at compensation and deterrence. But this broad statement can not be detached from the questions of which injuries the tort system aims to compensate and what kinds of harm does the tort system aim to deter.