About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

36 Drake L. Rev. 713 (1986-1987)
Fairness in Litigation or Equity for All

handle is hein.journals/drklr36 and id is 723 raw text is: FAIRNESS IN LITIGATION OR EQUITY FOR ALL Claire F. Carlson* Tort reform, an unknown expression a few years ago, is now a house- hold word. The law of torts began changing in the 1960's, commensurate with the civil rights movement and society's awareness of fairness for all. During this period, our courts began developing new theories of recovery for plaintiffs and abrogating protections and defenses previously available to defendants. Tort reforms instituted by the courts reflected an expansion of plaintiff's rights and the philosophy that compensation for injury could and should be apportioned among society.' Although this concept, in theory, is hard to refute, the greatly increased burden on the public has created a distortion of this objective of fairness. With the development of new theories of recovery, a new profession (the expert witness), and increasingly higher verdicts, have come higher costs. These include the expense of expanded court systems necessitated by in- creased litigation, higher costs to individuals, businesses and professionals due to increases in costs of products, insurance premiums and medical care, and the resulting higher prices for consumer goods and services. The public now realizes that equal rights have become unequal. Under the banner of tort reform, individuals, businesses, professions and govern- ments are requesting passage of legislation to protect not only plaintiffs, but defendants, and to equalize the rights of all parties. I. COURT TORT REFORM The Iowa Supreme Court has been in the forefront in the United States in broadening plaintiff's rights of recovery. Commencing with the adoption of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 402A,2 the court proceeded to abrogate spousal immunity3 and parental immunity (in certain cases),4 to * Partner, Kersten, Opheim & Carlson, Fort Dodge, Iowa. B.A., University of Iowa 1949; J.D., University of Iowa 1950. 1. L. FRUMER & M. FRIEDMAN, PRODUCTS LIABILITY § 1 (1987) (quoting, Epstein, Products Liability: The Search for the Middle Ground, 56 N.C. L. REV. 643 (1978)). 2. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 174 N.W.2d 672, 684 (Iowa 1970). This section of the Restatement deals with the special liability of seller of product for physical harm to user or consumer. See also Carmichael, Strict Liability in Tort - An Explosion in Products Liability Law, 20 DRAKE L. REV. 528 (1971). 3. Shook v. Crabb, 281 N.W.2d 616 (Iowa 1979). 4. Wagner v. Smith, 340 N.W.2d 255 (Iowa 1983) (refusing to abrogate parental immunity for negligent supervision); Turner v. Turner, 304 N.W.2d 786 (Iowa 1981) (abrogating absolute parental immunity).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most