Editor’s Introduction Symposium Issue: New Voices

Abstract

It is widely known that fewer scholars are writing about tort law. Schools are hiring in other areas – health and environmental law are common – and assign the hires to teach Torts, as well. There are, however, several authentic torts scholars among those recently arrived in the academy. We selected four to write for this issue’s symposium on New Voices. They are interested in different facets of tort law, and they write from different perspectives. They share a commitment to careful, interesting, and relevant scholarship. Alex Lemann addresses one of the hottest topics in tort law: liability for autonomous vehicles. Lemann denies that promoting the adoption of lifesaving technology, the focus of many scholars, should be the goal of a liability system for autonomous vehicles. Instead, Lemann argues that tort law should provide redress for those who have been wronged by defective products. Writing from a law-and-economics deterrence perspective, Benjamin McMichael addresses the issue of whether state scope-of-practice laws should require physicians to supervise nurse practitioners. Analyzing a unique dataset of malpractice insurance premiums charged to physicians in various specialties, McMichael concludes that the imposition of physician supervision requirements may blunt the role of tort law in deterring the provision of unsafe or low-quality care. Sarah Swan argues for an increased focus on the civil law of aiding and abetting. After describing its lengthy history, Swan discusses possible modern uses of aiding and abetting. Specifically, she believes it can fill gaps left by duty rules in negligence, perhaps most importantly in cases of failure to act by people in positions of authority and people who encourage conduct by spectating. Invoking the New Private Law movement, Cristina Tilley sets out to refute the idea that the tort of outrage (or intentional infliction of emotional distress) is inherently subjective. She argues the gist of outrageous conduct is biological. The “fight or flight” response in human beings is positive in that it serves to aid survival. When the response is triggered, but impediments prevent a person from acting, antisocial emotional distress is created. It is the creation of this