Three established torts require the defendant’s behavior to be “offensive” or “highly offensive” in order to be actionable: offensive battery, public disclosure of true private facts, and intrusion on seclusion. Although what links these “offensiveness” torts together has not been recognized before, this Article demonstrates that they occupy a sub-category of tort liability that is coherent, insight-generating, and useful. The torts developed at different times and in a sense for different reasons, but all three rest on the same principle: the idea that individual autonomy involves not only inviolable bodily space, but also inviolable private and informational space. What counts as actionable wrongdoing for these torts depends on the cultural context, because what is considered offensive conduct may vary, as cultural conditions change. The typical victim (or observer) of one of these torts must plausibly have the reaction “How dare you?” for the offensiveness element of the tort to be satisfied. That is what links these three superficially disparate torts together, and warrants understanding them together, as protections against invasions of the different forms of inviolable space that are a core feature of every individual’s autonomy.
Embedded in a recently decided Supreme Court case about Cuba and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act—Exxon Mobil v. Cimex—was a debate about the...
In Artificial Intelligence, Judicial Evolution, and Insurance, Professor Renee Henson achieves her stated goal of “advanc[ing] scholarly and industry...
This Article tells the story of three wholly unpredicted but enormously important late twentieth-century developments in tort liability and insurance...
This chapter identifies a series of topics and issues involving tort liability and insurance that could fruitfully be the subject of future research...
An important piece of the “speech-tort” picture has been almost completely missing from doctrinal and policy analysis: the role played by liability...
The first principle of insurance reflects the fundamental lesson of the tragic California fires: you can’t get something for nothing. If expected...
The glaring gap in tort theory is its failure to take adequate account of liability insurance. Much of tort theory fails to recognize the active and...
An upcoming Supreme Court case on Article III standing and disability presents critical questions about the future of litigation that promotes...
“Dignity” is a rallying cry of social and political movements worldwide. It also appears in legal doctrine and scholarship. But the meaning of dignity...
Three established torts require the defendant’s behavior to be “offensive” or “highly offensive” in order to be actionable: offensive battery, public...
This paper, prepared for the 2023 Clifford Symposium on “New Torts” at DePaul Law School, addresses the tort of offensive battery. This is an ancient...
It has long been said that the common law "works itself pure" But in the law of torts, not always. This Article reveals and analyzes the...
Public nuisance has lived many lives. A centuries-old doctrine defined as an unreasonable interference with a right common to the public, it is...
The requirement of harm has significantly impeded the enforcement of privacy law. In most tort and contract cases, plaintiffs must establish that they...
This Article, written for the annual Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy, chronicles a series of developments in American history that...