Introduction to Law & Society Fall 2013 C.

Cranor

STUDY QUESTIONS II 17. Nuclear radiation or benzene may cause leukemia in the workplace, so may natural processes. What problems do these pose for using the tort law to provide protections from such possible harms? What legal developments might address these problems? What is the best way of addressing the problems so victims receive compensation for workplace-caused harms? Could the regulatory law better protect them? Discuss. Sam smokes. Sam also worked on coke ovens in a steel mill. Both smoking and exposure to coke oven emissions can cause lung cancer. Sam contracts lung cancer. Should Sam be legally barred from receiving workers compensation for his lung cancer just because he smokes? Under what circumstances? What legal cases address this? Discuss with reference to course materials. To what extent do the criminal law and torts treat similar features of the law the same or differently? Discuss at least the following: voluntary act requirement, mens rea, strict liability, causation, and proximate causation. If they are treated differently what functional differences between their roles in each are of the law explains why one area of the law has the feature and the other does not? If they are addressed the same, what functional similarities justifies this? What do the similarities and differences reveal about these two aspects of a legal system? Discuss in detail. With reference to course materials discuss some of the main differences between the tort law and regulatory law. Which area of law might be better at preventing illness and disease from exposure to asbestos in the workplace? Discuss with reference to Rosenberg, Shavell (at end of Chapter 3 in Regulating Toxic Substances ) and Cranor (The Regulatory Context for Environmental and Workplace Health Protections) as well as Hodgson. What problems resulting from asbestos exposure are the different areas better at addressing? Which might better provide remedies for individuals? Discuss in detail with references to class materials. Can the legal system do without either area of the law to protect employee health toxic substances in the workplace? What might be both sides of this issue. Which might be better at providing general environmental health protections , e.g., from exposure to toxic substances, such as ozone, in the air or reducing exposures to PCBs? 21. Should adherence to regulatory standards absolve an employer from tort law responsibility for harms caused to employees by exposure to toxic substances? Describe the law on this with regard to nuclear materials. What should the law on this bediscuss with reference to course materials, especially Sindell v. Abott Labs., Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee, and Rosenberg. Should regulatory law in an area absolve an employer from criminal responsibility for harms caused by toxic exposures? Discuss with reference to People v. ONeill and Film Recovery Systems , Chicago Magnet Wire and other class materials. Is failure to adhere to regulatory standards sufficient for an employer to be held criminally responsible for harms caused to employees by exposure to toxic substances such as cyanide? from

18.

19.

20.

22.

Introduction to Law & Society Fall 2013 C. Cranor

Describe the law on this. If if is, explain why it is; if it is not, what more is needed. Do you think the law is correct on this, why or why not? Discuss with reference to course materials, especially People v. ONeil and Film Recovery Systems and People v. Chicago Magnet Wire. Should regulatory law in an area preempt the possibility of an employer being held for criminal responsibility for harms caused by toxic exposures? Discuss with reference to class materials. 23. Discuss strict liability in products liability. What arguments did courts utilize to justify the imposition of strict liability instead of negligence? Would similar arguments be plausible in the criminal law? The courts in Escola v. Coca Cola, Sindell v. Abbot Labs, and Summers v. Tice use some unusual arguments for assigning responsibility to defendants for harm caused to others. Identify three of these arguments. Why do the courts utilize arguments like this; what purpose(s) do they serve? Would courts use such arguments in the criminal law, why or why not? What does this show about the two areas of the law? In what ways do Stubbs v. the City of Rochester, Summers v. Tice, Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul and S.S.M. R.R., McAllister v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board , and Sindell v. Abbot Laboratories modify but-for causation and proof requirements for a typical tort law case?? Discuss, using examples. Do these modifications seem defensible? Discuss What reasons have courts given (or might they give) for modifying tort law causation rules (i.e., by providing "material cause" rules and by changing the requirement that a particular plaintiff show his/her injuries were caused by a particular defendant)? Explain why they think that the rules should be modified? Discuss. With references to cases In torts the law looks to the person damaged . . . and seeks to make him whole, without reference to the purpose or the condition, mental or physical, of the person causing the damage. This court statement contrasts torts with the criminal law. Explain thoroughly the extent to which this statement is correct with regard to some similarities and differences between the criminal law and torts. Under what circumstances might the economic feasibility requirement of the OSH Act override considerations of employee health protection in a regulation? Discuss with reference to the Hodgson case and other class materials.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Introduction to Law & Society Fall 2013 C. Cranor

29.

Workplaces can be contaminated with toxic substances such as cyanide, asbestos, or plutonium, sometimes causing serious illnesses or the deaths of employees. a. Describe in detail how a regulatory law (such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act) is used to protect employees health and lives in the workplace. What are the strengths and limitations of regulatory law for this purpose? Illustrate these points with respect to regulations concerning asbestos exposures addressed by OSHA. Discuss with respect to lectures, readings, and other class materials, especially Cranor, Shavell and Rosenberg. b. Explain, explicitly referencing class materials, how the tort law and the criminal law could provide employees with some protections from these toxicants. c. What are some of the strengths and limitations of the tort law and of the criminal law for providing such protections? Discuss with reference to People v. ONeill and Film Recovery Systems , People v. Chicago Magnet Wire, Sindell v. Abbott Labs., and Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee, as well as other cases, lectures, handouts, and course materials. d. Describe a factual scenario in which all three areas of law covered in this course (criminal law, tort law, and regulatory law) might be used to protect employees rights from fatal exposures to asbestos or cyanide. How well might each strategy help protect employees? What potential barriers or limitations might there be in utilizing each area of the law? Respond by taking into account your answers to a), b), and c) above as well as other course materials.