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
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...
Three established torts require the defendant’s behavior to be “offensive” or “highly offensive” in order to be actionable: offensive battery, public...
This casebook aspires to help students understand and think systematically about the techniques of statutory interpretation. It blends exposition with...
Supreme Court opinions involving race and the jury invariably open with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, or landmark cases like...
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...
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...
How should judges decide hard cases involving rights conflicts? Standard debates about this question are usually framed in jurisprudential terms...
Berryessa et al. (2022) consider how prior experience as a criminal prosecutor may influence judicial behaviour, but their concerns about prior...
Forensic evidence has become a common tool in police investigations and a familiar form of evidence at trial. Forensic scientists are trained to...
A federal grand jury in Florida indicted former President Donald Trump on June 8, 2023, on multiple criminal charges related to classified documents...
In our increasingly polarized society, claims that prosecutions are politically motivated, racially motivated, or just plain arbitrary are more common...
The lawyer-client relationship is pivotal in providing access to courts. This paper presents results from a large-scale field experiment exploring how...
William Blackstone famously expressed the view that convicting the innocent constitutes a much more serious error than acquitting the guilty. This...
Perhaps the most surprising feature of the last Supreme Court term was the extraordinary public discourse on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. According to...
Public nuisance has lived many lives. A centuries-old doctrine defined as an unreasonable interference with a right common to the public, it is...