The rule that evidence of compliance with or departure from custom is admissible to prove negligence implements the idea that recurring patterns of conduct have a bearing on what constitutes reasonable care. In contrast, evidence of the incidence of practices that are not sufficiently widespread to qualify as customs is not admissible to prove negligence. In de-emphasizing the importance of patterns of conduct that regularly recur but are not as widespread as customs, the practice rule treats each negligence case as more nearly unique, and leaves greater room for the risk-benefit and reasonable prudence conceptions of negligence to operate. In this Article, I attempt to enrich our understanding of the custom rule, including what the rule implies about the admissibility of practice evidence. I do this by examining precisely what makes custom evidence at least potentially probative of reasonable care, and by identifying two functions of custom evidence that have not been emphasized in previous work. Custom evidence is not only directly relevant to the negligence issue, but can also perform a knowledge-building, or educational function. And admitting custom evidence may help to prevent the jury from drawing unwarranted inferences from the absence of such evidence. Interestingly, there is virtually no case law addressing the admissibility or inadmissibility of the incidence of practices that are not customs. I identify the reasons for this case law vacuum, and consider the arguments for and against permitting the introduction of evidence of the incidence of such practices. Finally, precisely because negligence law permits the parties to deploy, and juries to consider, evidence and arguments based on the different perspectives that the custom and practice rules reflect, we have a conception of negligence that is often ambiguous. In a brief concluding discussion, therefore, I return to the contrast between the different sources of authority in negligence law, and try to tease out some of the broader implications of this contrast for our understanding of negligence
This Article tells the story of three wholly unpredicted but enormously important late twentieth-century developments in tort liability and insurance...
Trump v. United States is so intensely criticized that, in some quarters, it is at risk of being included in the anti-canon. It is alleged to be...
The first principle of insurance reflects the fundamental lesson of the tragic California fires: you can’t get something for nothing. If expected...
Supreme Court opinions involving race and the jury invariably open with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, or landmark cases like...
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...
These are momentous times for the comparative analysis of judicial behaviour. Once the sole province of US political scientists, a new generation of...
An upcoming Supreme Court case on Article III standing and disability presents critical questions about the future of litigation that promotes...
Constitutional review is the power of a body, usually a court, to assess whether law or government action complies with the constitution. Originating...
Evidence law controls what information will be admissible in court and when, how, and by whom it may be presented. It shapes not only the trial...
“Dignity” is a rallying cry of social and political movements worldwide. It also appears in legal doctrine and scholarship. But the meaning of dignity...
Donald J. Trump appointed 234 federal judges in his first term. Trump, as is his wont, claims, with an inflated number, that he appointed a record...
On January 1, 2022, the most radical change to the American jury in at least thirty-five years occurred in Arizona: peremptory strikes, long a feature...
Legal ethicists, advocacy groups, and politicians have called for greater restrictions on the use of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) when parties...
Three established torts require the defendant’s behavior to be “offensive” or “highly offensive” in order to be actionable: offensive battery, public...
In recent years, the federal courts have seen a plethora of lawsuits originated by states challenging federal government actions. As a result, there...
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...
This casebook aspires to help students understand and think systematically about the techniques of statutory interpretation. It blends exposition with...
This Essay reports data on the impact of Bruen and its predecessor, Heller, on gun rights cases. Put mildly, the impact was substantial, not only in...