Jean M. Eggen

Toward a Neuroscience Model of Tort Law: How Functional Neuroimaging Will Transform Tort Doctrine

Jean M. Eggen et al. — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:31:01 PDT

The “neuroscience revolution” has now gained the attention of legal thinkers and is poised to be the catalyst for significant changes in the law. Over the past several decades, research in functional neuroimaging has sought to explain a vast array of human thought processes and behaviors, and the law has taken notice. Although functional neuroimaging is not yet close to being a staple in the courtroom, the information acquired from these studies has been featured in a handful of cases, including a few before the United States Supreme Court. Our assertion involves the incorporation of functional neuroscience evidence in tort law related to the variety of mental states, including intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. As the courts become saturated with neurimaging evidence, it is imperative to be prepared with a framework which addresses the many legal questions that the new neuroscience will pose. Our proposed neuroscience model of tort law is both simple and complex. Its simplicity lies in a workable framework for allowing the law to move forward while incorporating functional neuroimaging evidence in tort law. Its complexity is in the challenges posed by the interpretation of the neuroscience data and by extrapolation from the evidence to the legal issues. Our model is intended to commence the discourse about ways in which tort law may be improved through an understanding of, and appropriate use of, information acquired through the newest technologies of functional neuroimaging. We intend this model to provide guidance to judges and attorneys when confronted with functional neuroimaging evidence in tort cases, and we anticipate that serious consideration of the model will propel courts toward incorporating these relevant social and scientific advances into the evolving principles of tort law.

Federal Preemption of Claims Based on Cell Phone Hazards: Farina v. Nokia and the Road to the U.S. Supreme Court

Jean M. Eggen — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:56:05 PDT

Punitive Damages and the Public Health Agenda

Jean M. Eggen — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:50:48 PST

Toxic Torts in a Nutshell

Jean M. Eggen — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:17:47 PDT

Toxic Torts in a Nutshell

Jean M. Eggen — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:16:17 PDT

Toxic Torts in a Nutshell

Jean M. Eggen — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:12:08 PDT

The Mature Product Preemption Doctrine: The Unitary Standard and the Paradox of Consumer Protection

Jean M. Eggen — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:25:49 PDT

The history of the U.S. Supreme Court's product preemption doctrine has been characterized by inconsistency and confusion. Product regulation and common-law product liability actions are primarily concerned with assuring the health and safety of the consuming public, and it is not surprising that the Court's product preemption decisions have focused substantially on medical devices and drugs. Recent government studies have shown, however, that the FDA is hampered in reaching its safety goals by insufficient resources and increasing demands. This article reassesses the Court's product preemption doctrine in the light of a triad of new decisions issued in 2008 and 2009. This article argues, first, that the new decisions demonstrate that the Court has embraced a unitary standard for product preemption, which merges previously discrete elements into a single, discretionary analytical process. The unitary standard lacks the desirable structure of a doctrine of this magnitude and leaves itself open to being applied in an arbitrary and unpredictable manner. This article then argues that although the Court continues to express respect for the traditional role of state tort actions in advancing consumer protection, a disconnect exists between those policy goals and the analytical process the Court uses, which places those goals in jeopardy. The unitary standard, paradoxically, invites arbitrary and unpredictable results and poses a threat to the public in the area of product safety.

The Synergy of Toxic Tort Law and Public Health: Lessons from a Century of Cigarettes

Jean M. Eggen — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:48:48 PDT

Toxic torts is a relatively new area of the law, but its seeds were sown a century ago with developments in modern culture. The design, manufacture, and marketing of the cigarette constituted one such development, one with far-reaching legal consequences which continue to challenge the legal system today. This article is built around Allan M. Brandt's 2007 public health history of cigarettes, THE CIGARETTE CENTURY. It uses Brandt's book as a stepping stone to a broader discussion of current critical issues in toxic tort law. The article begins with a review of the book, then moves into a discussion of the ways in which the watershed events in law and science that surrounded the cigarette in the twentieth century have shaped the major legal issues in toxic tort law today. In conducting this analysis, I focus on the three major areas of scientific causation, preemption, and mass toxic tort litigation. I demonstrate that the public health history of cigarettes offers many lessons for judges, attorneys, and legal scholars in addressing the most troubling issues that arise in toxic tort litigation.

Toxic Product Liability Under State Law After Cipollone

Jean M. Eggen — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:25:53 PST

The Proposed Tobacco Settlement: "Bitter Pill" or Sweet Deal?

Jean M. Eggen — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:26:07 PST

Foreword

Jean M. Eggen — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:23:33 PST

The Impact of the Class Action Fairness Act on Plaintiffs in Mass-Tort Actions

Jean M. Eggen — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:14:48 PST

Toxic Exposures at Ground Zero: Is There a Role for the Tort System?

Jean M. Eggen — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:56:35 PST

Daubert and Its Progeny: Expert Scientific Evidence in Massachusetts Personal Injury Cases

Jean M. Eggen — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:52:53 PST

Gun Makers Seek to Bar Justice

John G. Culhane et al. — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:49:39 PST

Punitive Damages and the Tobacco Industry: New Guidelines from the U. S. Supreme Court

Jean M. Eggen — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:49:23 PST

Note, United States v. Havens: Impeachment By Illegally Obtained Evidence

Jean M. Eggen — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:58:43 PST

Medical Malpractice Screening Panels: Proposed Model Legislation to Cure Judicial Ills

Jean M. Eggen — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:57:18 PST

"The Orwellian Nightmare" Reconsidered: A Proposed Regulatory Framework for the Advanced Reproductive Technologies

Jean M. Eggen — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:55:49 PST

Toxic Reproductive and Genetic Hazards in the Workplace: Challenging the Myths of the Tort and Workers' Compensation Systems

Jean M. Eggen — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:50:27 PST

This article discusses how various scientific studies suggest a causal connection between workers' reproductive and genetic injuries and their exposure to toxic substances in the workplace. Because of conflicts between scientific and legal causation standards, workers and affected family members often cannot prove a sufficient causal connection between toxic exposure and ensuing injury to recover under existing workers' compensation laws and the common law of torts. This article reviews the problems inherent in both the workers' compensation and torts systems in handling occupational diseases claims. It proposes some specific reforms to improve the availability of these relief mechanisms for toxic exposure victims.