FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W69030835> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W69030835 startingPage "789" @default.
• W69030835 abstract "There are significant reasons for pursuing solutions that are flexible and nuanced in context of second-hand asbestos exposure. Those reasons center on history and geography-the history of asbestos manufacture and product use within United States and geography of both asbestos use and asbestos-related tort claims.In her Note, Ms. Flinn discusses development of three distinct strands of state tort law addressing potential duty of care that an employer might owe an employee's family member who was exposed to asbestos.1 The three distinct approaches center around first, foreseeability of danger and harm;2 second, relationship between claimant and employer;3 and third, misfeasance or nonfeasance approach, which focuses on whether relevant behavior is an act or omission.4 Ms. Flinn addresses advantages and drawbacks of each of these positions and indicates whether these approaches tend to favor plaintiffs or defendants in tort litigation.The Note then turns to evaluating two important recent developments in field: failed history of attempted federal legislative solutions5 and novel approach of Third Restatement,6 which creates a presumption of a duty where there is a risk of physical harm, but allows that presumption to be outweighed by articulated policy considerations.7 Ultimately Ms. Flinn rejects both pursuing federal legislative solutions and approach of Third Restatement.8 She encourages a multifactored test approach that would consider each of tort factors traditionally relevant to an analysis of duty-including both foreseeability of harm and relationship between parties-while also incorporating Restatement's public policy approach to duty.9Significantly, Note recognizes that state tort law diverges when weighting these and other factors in duty analysis, with some states relying heavily on foreseeability and others weighting factors more evenly.10 Ms. Flinn encourages states to continue to use each of factors, weighting them according to their own historical practice.* 11 Additionally, she argues that state legislatures rather than federal should take on task of considering appropriate legislation that would weight policy considerations raised by second-hand exposure cases.12In this Comment, I want to take opportunity to explain some additional support for Note's approach, which rejects what many have sought in terms of national consistency within this line of cases. My observations on these topics come from direct experience-through a few years of litigating products liability claims that included not only premises-based asbestos exposure claims but also second-hand exposure cases. In litigating those cases, I applied my training as a legal historian to review of hundreds of boxes of client documents dating to early half of twentieth century along with summaries of research from numerous other cases and industries. In following, I offer a few reflections about complexity of historical story, based on my own exposure to pending cases.As Note explains, one of differences between Third Restatement's approach and foreseeability approach is that former makes duty a question of law, while latter approaches duty through a question of fact.13 The foreseeability approach, which is arguably also inherent in many policy considerations for second-hand asbestos exposure claims,14 immediately generates historical questions. Who knew that asbestos was lethal enough to cause harm to an employee's family members when carried home on clothing? When was that knowledge common or expected?Unfortunately, in seeking simple, comprehensive, and national answers to those questions, courts often speak of knowledge of the asbestos industry,15 a phrase too historically broad to generate very accurate conclusions. As a naturally occurring mineral substance with extraordinary physical properties in terms of thermal capacities and manipulability of mineral fibers that rivaled fabrics, asbestos permeated industrial work within United States for decades. …" @default.
• W69030835 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W69030835 creator A5048210534 @default.
• W69030835 date "2014-01-01" @default.
• W69030835 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W69030835 title "Comment: Knowledge Circles and the Duty of Care" @default.
• W69030835 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W69030835 type Work @default.
• W69030835 sameAs 69030835 @default.
• W69030835 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W69030835 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W69030835 hasAuthorship W69030835A5048210534 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C166151441 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C2776218876 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C2777363581 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C2777553895 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C2779103253 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C2780253743 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C57017900 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W69030835 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C166151441 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C166957645 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C17744445 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C199539241 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C200635333 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C2776218876 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C2777351106 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C2777363581 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C2777553895 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C2777834853 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C2779103253 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C2779343474 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C2780253743 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C57017900 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C83009810 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C95457728 @default.
• W69030835 hasConceptScore W69030835C97460637 @default.
• W69030835 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W69030835 hasLocation W690308351 @default.
• W69030835 hasOpenAccess W69030835 @default.
• W69030835 hasPrimaryLocation W690308351 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W1013043042 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W14564392 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W1491225479 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W1502088949 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W1567341385 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W1584448017 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W1607176900 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W2408670899 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W2417803208 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W2496210803 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W2805077781 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W2905109219 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W2909319602 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W2986801038 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W310468655 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W3122372331 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W3123126345 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W3126138501 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W3134631158 @default.
• W69030835 hasRelatedWork W659013751 @default.
• W69030835 hasVolume "71" @default.
• W69030835 isParatext "false" @default.
• W69030835 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W69030835 magId "69030835" @default.
• W69030835 workType "article" @default.