Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tort Opinions

A feminist rewrite of tort law cases that reveals gender bias and the law's failure to redress serious harms to women.

Martha Chamallas (Edited by), Lucinda M. Finley (Edited by)

9781108484299, Cambridge University Press

Hardback, published 10 December 2020

500 pages
15 x 23 x 3 cm, 0.82 kg

'A strong point of this book is that the cases are all relevant and interesting, and each analysis differs enough from the original opinion. Each rewritten judgment makes enough relevant points that it is easy for readers to wish that they had been the actual decisions. Academic librarians, practitioners interested in gender and the law, as well as law students would certainly benefit from reading this book.' Emily Benton, Canadian Law Library Review

By rewriting both canonical and lesser-known tort cases from a feminist perspective, this volume exposes gender and racial bias in how courts have categorized and evaluated harm stemming from pre-natal malpractice, pregnancy loss, domestic violence, sexual assault and harassment, invasion of privacy, and the award of economic and non-economic damages. The rewritten opinions demonstrate that when confronted with gendered harm to women, courts have often distorted or misapplied conventional legal doctrine to diminish the harm or deny recovery. Bringing this implicit bias to the surface can make law students, and lawyers and judges who craft arguments and apply tort doctrines, more aware of inequalities of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation or identity. This volume shows the way forward to make the basic doctrines of tort law more responsive to the needs and perspectives of traditionally marginalized people, in ways that give greater value to harms that they disproportionately experience.

Preface
Part I. Introduction: 1. Introduction to the feminist judgments: rewritten torts opinions project Martha Chamallas and Lucinda M. Finley
Part II. The Classics: 2. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928) Taunya Lovell Banks and Maurice Dyson
3. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 150 P.2d 436 (Cal. 1944) Mary J. Davis and Zanita Fenton
4. Farwell v. Keaton, 240 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. 1976) E Christi Cunningham and Sarah L. Swan
5. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976) Jaimie R. Abrams, Sharmila Lodhia and Stephanie Wildman
Part III. Intentional Torts: 6. Robinson v. Cutchin, 140 F. Supp. 2d 488 (D. Md. 2001) Yvonne Lindgren and Alena Allen
7. Guthrie v. Conroy, 567 S.E.2d 403 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) L. Camille Hébert and Sandra Sperino
8. Lyman v. Huber, 10 A.3d 707 (Me. 2010) Caroline Forell, Jeffrey Thomas and Leah Thomas
9. Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 201 Cal. Rptr. 665 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) Anna Lauren Hoffman and Scott Skinner-Thompson
Part IV. Negligence and Vicarious Liability: 10. Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd., 989 P.2d 121 (Cal. 1999) Jessica Hynes and Yifat Bitton
11. Broadnax v. Gonzalez, 809 N.E.2d 645 (N.Y. 2004) Elizabeth Kukura, Eileen Kaufman and Laura Dooley
12. Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. 1993) Lisa R. Pruitt and Cristina Tilley
13. Emerson v. Magendantz, 689 A.2d 409 (R.I. 1997) Lucinda M. Finley and Katherine Silbaugh
14. McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc., 826 F.2d 1554 (7th Cir. 1987) Molly Wilder and Hannah Brenner
15. Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital, 907 P.2d 358 (Cal. 1995) Christine M. Tamer and Stacey Tovino
Part V. Damages: 16. G.M.M. v. Kimpson, 116 F. Supp. 3d 126 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) Twila L. Perry, Jennifer B. Wriggins and Sara Cressey
17. Simpkins v. Grace Brethren Church of Delaware, Ohio, 73 N.E.3d 122 (Ohio 2016) Jill Wieber Lens and Shaakirrah Sanders.

Subject Areas: Torts / Delicts [LNV], Gender & the law [LAQG], Law & society [LAQ], Feminism & feminist theory [JFFK]