Search

The five thoughtful, incisive articles by Professors Bernstein, Chamallas, Geistfeld, Moore, and Sugarman offer a breathtaking range of perspectives on the Restatement, Third of Torts: Intentional Torts to Persons ("ITR"). Some view tort law from the widest vantage point, inquiring whether this forest deserves its own appellation or should instead be assimilated to the rest of tort's greenery. Some focus more on the trees-on the distinct doctrines that characterize the torts and defenses that ITR is restating. In this response, we engage with the participants at both levels. Our response also addresses two fundamental questions-the role of a Restatement and the significance of the "intentional tort" category. First, ITR is a Restatement of tort law. It is not a model code of tort law, nor is it an academic article committed to a particular vision of the proper purposes and principles of tort law. We see our task, not as creating a grand theory from which all of intentional tort doctrine can be deduced, but as a bottom-up endeavor, accurately characterizing developments in the case law and then providing the most sensible and persuasive justifications for extant doctrine. At the same time, however, we strive to provide intellectual coherence to this body of law. Thus, we examine not only the holdings in narrow doctrinal categories, but also the consistency of those holdings with more general tort law principles. Second, what is distinctive about the intentional torts to persons? How do they differ from torts of negligence or from other intentional torts? These questions have no simple answer, because most of the intentional torts to persons have very long historical roots, and because the common law process of reformulating doctrine has played a vital role in defining the scope of these torts in current American law. It is thus not at all surprising to find tensions and apparent inconsistencies between some current doctrines. Nevertheless, we believe that the contemp

This Article is the second of a two-part endeavor assessing the use of foreseeability in negligence law, and arguing against its everexpanding role in the element of duty. The first article, Purging Foreseeability, urged courts to adopt the general duty provisions of the pro. posed Restatement (Third) of Torts—provisions that would purge duty of foreseeability-based considerations. Courts and scholars have resisted the Restatement's attempts to rid duty of foreseeability out of a jurisprudential view that foreseeability simply "belongs" there. This Article urges that the conceptual work clone by foreseeability also might fit wholly and seamlessly within the elements of breach and proximate cause. In proving that foreseeability's conceptual fit is thus indeterminate, the Article aims to refocus the debate on whether the court or the jury is the better arbiter of foreseeability—a matter that courts are reluctant to discuss and scholars have largely ignored.