Tort Law

Online
Essay
Causal AI—A VISOR for the Law of Torts
Gerhard Wagner
Dr. Gerhard Wagner is the Chair of Civil Law, Commercial Law, and Law and Economics at Humboldt University of Berlin.

He has previously served as visiting professor at University College London, the University of Chicago, and Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas, as well as a visiting scholar at the New York University School of Law. His research focuses include torts, private law theory, and dispute resolution.

Causal AI is within reach. It has the potential to trigger nothing less than a conceptual revolution in the law. This Essay explains why and takes a cautious look into the crystal ball. Causation is an elusive concept in many disciplines—not only the law, but also science and statistics. Even the most up-to-date artificial intelligence systems do not “understand” causation, as they remain limited to the analysis of text and images. It is a long-standing statistical axiom that it is impossible to infer causation from the correlation of variables in datasets. This thwarts the extraction of causal relations from observational data. But important advances in computer science will enable us to distinguish between mere correlation and factual causation. At the same time, artificially intelligent systems are beginning to learn how to “think causally.”

Print
Comment
Volume 91.8
A Disability Inclusive Theory of "Ordinary" Care: Redistributing Accommodative Labor in Torts
Rachel Caldwell
B.A. 2021, Arizona State University; J.D. Candidate 2025, The University of Chicago Law School.

I would like to thank Professor Adam Chilton for advising this Comment, as well as Andrew Webb, Barry Taylor, and Professor Katie Eyer for their feedback.

Everyone owes each other a duty of ordinary care—but what is “ordinary”? How does one act reasonably to meet this burden? This Comment analyzes the current reasonable person standard for disabled plaintiffs and the corresponding duty of “ordinary care” provided by defendants through a critical disability studies lens. The current system of tort law burdens disabled plaintiffs with accommodating themselves, rather than requiring defendants to include accessible care in meeting their duty of ordinary care. To make the distribution of accommodative labor more equitable, this Comment proposes three stackable changes: (1) courts should reinterpret defendants’ duty of ordinary care to include care of individuals with disabilities by eliminating the doctrine that tortfeasors owe accommodations to people with disabilities only if they are on notice of their disabilities; (2) courts could further shift the balance of accommodative labor by factoring the mental and physical cost of accommodating oneself into the reasonable care inquiry when the plaintiff is disabled; and (3) courts could eliminate comparative negligence for plaintiffs with disabilities to address the problematic “reasonable person with a disability” standard. This Comment also explores theoretical, doctrinal, and normative justifications while creating space for a more robust dialogue on how the law treats disability as “extra”—but not ordinary.

Online
Essay
Holding AI Accountable: Addressing AI-Related Harms Through Existing Tort Doctrines
Anat Lior
Anat Lior is an assistant professor at Drexel University’s Thomas R. Kline School of Law, an AI Schmidt affiliated Scholar with the Jackson School at Yale, and an affiliated fellow at the Yale Information Society Project. Her research focuses on Artificial Intelligence and its interaction with tort law, insurance law, and antitrust law. She commonly confronts issues such as AI regulation and policy, AI liability, and insurance as applied to emerging technologies.

She would like to thank Asaf Lubin, Jessa Feiler, and the participants of “How AI Will Change the Law” symposium for their helpful comments.

This paper examines the distinct features of artificial intelligence (AI) and reaches a broader conclusion as to the availability and applicability of first-order tort rules. It evaluates the accuracy of the argument that AI is similar in essence to other emerging technologies that have entered our lives since the First Industrial Revolution and, therefore, does not require special legal treatment. The paper will explore whether our current tort doctrines can serve us well even when addressing AI liability.

Print
Article
Volume 89.5
An Information-Production Theory of Liability Rules
Assaf Jacob
Harry Radzyner Law School, Reichman University (IDC)
Roy Shapira
Harry Radzyner Law School, Reichman University (IDC)

We thank Ronen Avraham, Shahar Dillbary, Avihay Dorfman, Ehud Guttel, Alon Harel, Yotam Kaplan, Dan Klerman, Steve Shavell, and Alfred Yen for helpful comments, and Yael Amiel, Tal Elmakaiess and Talya Yosphe for excellent research assistance.

tandard economic analysis views strict liability as preferable to negligence because it is easier to administer and leads to better risk reduction: strict liability induces injurers not only to optimally invest in precaution but also to optimally adjust their activity levels. Standard analysis thus views the prevalence of negligence as unjustifiable on efficiency grounds. This Article challenges the conventional wisdom and clarifies an efficiency rationale for negligence by spotlighting the information-production function of tort law.

Print
Article
88.1
Proximate Cause Explained: An Essay in Experimental Jurisprudence
Joshua Knobe
Professor of Philosophy and Psychology and Linguistics, Yale University.

For comments on an earlier version, we are deeply grateful to Guilherme Almeida, Fiery Cushman, Mihailis Diamantis, Ivar Hannikainen, Scott Hershovitz, Brian Leiter, James Macleod, Roseanna Sommers, Andy Summers, Kevin Tobia, John Witt, Ben Zipursky, and Gideon Yaffe. Katya Botchkina provided excellent research assistance and her philosophical suggestions were immensely helpful to us in drafting Part VI.

Scott Shapiro
Charles F. Southmayd Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy, Yale University.

A few days before Christmas 1924, William Markowitz sold an air rifle to Richard Kevans. Markowitz should not have made that sale.

Print
Article
86 Special
Richard Posner, the Decline of the Common Law, and the Negligence Principle
Saul Levmore
William B. Graham Distinguished Service Professor, The University of Chicago Law School.

I am grateful to Lee Fennell, Daniel Hemel, Ariel Porat, and Claire Horrell for rewarding conversations and suggestions.

Richard Posner was certainly the most able judge in the history of tort law and in the development and deployment of law and economics.