Wake Forest Law Review
  • About
    • Submissions
    • Subscriptions
  • Staff
    • Masthead Archive
  • Law Review Print
  • Law Review Online
  • Current Issues Blog
  • Symposia
  • Archived Blogs
20Dec

The Restatement (Third) of Torts and Traditional Strict Liability: Robust Rationales, Slender Doctrines

Categories: Law Review
Comments Off on The Restatement (Third) of Torts and Traditional Strict Liability: Robust Rationales, Slender Doctrines

By: Kenneth W. Simmons*

Simmons_LawReview_December2009

* The Honorable Frank R. Kenison Distinguished Scholar in Law and Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law. I thank Greg Keating and Jane Stapleton for their valuable advice, and Ariel Greenstein and Andrew Keutmann for their helpful research assistance.

Tags: Restatement (Third) of Torts Strict-liability
« Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: A View of the Proposed Restatement (Third) Provisions from England
Unpacking Emotional Distress: Sexual Exploitation, Reproductive Harm, and Fundamental Rights »

Post Topics

Administrative Law Antitrust Bankruptcy Business Law Civil Litigation Civil Procedure Civil Rights Conspiracy Constitutional Law Contracts Copyright Corporate COVID-19 Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Discrimination Drugs Employment Law Environmental Law Evidence Family Law Financial First Amendment Fourth Amendment Fourth Circuit Free Speech habeas corpus Health Care Health Law Immigration International Law Liability Negligence North Carolina Plea agreement Privacy Restatement (Third) of Torts Sentencing Sentencing Guidelines statutory interpretation Summary Judgment Supreme Court Symposium Title VII Tort

Social

    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    © Wake Forest Law Review Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The opinions expressed herein are those of the individual contributors to the Law Review and should not be construed as the opinions of the Wake Forest Law Review Association, Inc. © Wake Forest Law Review Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The opinions expressed herein are those of the individual contributors to the Law Review and should not be construed as the opinions of the Wake Forest Law Review Association, Inc. Theme by Easy-forma
    • twitter
    • linked