Reviewing the law reviews.

• Author: Youngdale, Elizabeth M.
• Position: Bibliography

This is a selective bibliography of current law review literature.

Highlights of the Articles

Gun manufacturer liability has become an increasingly contentious issue in recent years. Legislatures and courts have weighed in, sometimes on opposite sides of the debate. Even as state legislatures and Congress have attempted to limit the rights of people to sue gun manufacturers, courts have opened the way for some suits to proceed. The question of which branch of government has authority over this issue is one that is still being examined. Additionally, new types of suits against gun manufacturers show unique ways that the Alien Tort Claims Act might be used as a way to effect change on a global level.

Although the battle over gun manufacturer civil liability continues to bounce between the courts and the legislatures, such questions of liability could legitimately be addressed in either forum. In his article, Legislating or Litigating Policy Change: Gunmaker Tort Liability (12 Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law 140 (2004)), Daniel Feldman, an Assistant Deputy Attorney General in the New York State Department of Law and Adjunct Professor at Fordham Law School, looks at the cultural history of gun ownership in the U.S. and how the industry of gun manufacturing developed. He uses this history as a backdrop for a discussion of the rationale behind imposing liability on the makers of firearms and the generally accepted principle that legislatures have the ability--and the authority--to make this type of decision; although generally, they have not acted on this authority.

Stymied in the legislative arena, gun control advocates turned their attention to the courts. When first presented with this issue in the 1990s, most courts accepted the then widely held viewpoint that most crimes committed with guns were committed with guns that had been stolen from their legal owners. This "fact" has since been disproved, opening the way, according to Mr. Feldman, for more viable claims against gun manufacturers. As courts began to recognize the viability of these claims, an argument was made that the legislatures--not the courts--were the proper venue for this issue. Ultimately, Mr. Feldman concludes that both courts and legislatures have the legitimate fight to try to resolve the issue of civil liability for gun manufacturers in the United States.

Civil liability for gun manufacturers in the international arena, and particularly with regard to child soldiers, might be raised in United States courts through the Alien Tort Claims Act as a way to stop the illegal trade of small arms and light weapons that perpetuate violence in so many areas of the world. Nancy Morrisseau, a student at Cornell Law School, proposes in her note, Seen But Not Heard: Child Soldiers Suing Gun Manufacturers Under the Alien Tort Claims Act (89 Cornell Law Review 1263 (2004)), that the Alien Tort Claims Act can empower child soldiers by holding the manufacturers of these weapons responsible for the destruction caused by their product. Ms. Morrisseau argues that gun manufacturers know--or have reason to know--that the weapons they produce make their way into the hands of groups who use child soldiers in contravention of international law. Through the Alien Tort Claims Act, and suits against gun manufacturers, these children have a tool that could be used to fight the proliferation of the small arms and light weapons that feed the conflicts in which children are often voiceless victims.

U.S. and International

Damages

Manuel A. Abdala & Pablo T. Spiller, .Damage Valuation of Indirect Exprop-riation In International Arbitration Cases, 14 American Review of Inter-national Arbitration 447 (2003).

J. Cam Barker, Note, Grossly Excessive Penalties in the Battle Against Illegal File Sharing: The Troubling Effects of Aggregating Minimum Statutory Damages for Copyright Infringement, 83 Texas Law Review 525 (2004).

Jeffrey Berryman, Reconceptualizing Aggravated Damages: Recognizing the Dignitary Interest and Referential Loss, 41 San Diego Law Review 1521 (2004).

Miller B. Brownstein, Note, Injury Free, But Money for Me: Whether the Civil Rights Act of 1991 Permits Punitive Damages in the Absence of Compensatory Damages, 84 Boston University Law Review 1049 (2004).

Joyce Cruz Carey, Limiting Punitive Damage Awards for Physical Harms in the Healthcare Field: Extending State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 34 Southwestern University Law Review 67 (2004).

Janeen M Carruthers, Note, Substance and Procedure in the Conflict of Laws: A Continuing Debate in Relation to Damages, 53 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 691 (2004).

Erwin Chemerinsky & Ned Miltenberg, The Need to Clarify the Meaning of U.S. Supreme Court Remands: The Lessons of Punitive Damage Cases, 36 Arizona State Law Journal 513 (2004).

Ruth M. Corbin, "There Are Some Things Money Can't Buy. For Everything Else, There Are Damages." The Proof of Irreparable Harm in Canadian Practice, 94 Trademark Reporter 1294 (2004).

Gregory Scott Crespi, Measuring "Actual Harm" for the Purpose of Determining the Enforceability of Liquidated Damages Clauses, 41 Houston Law Review 1579 (2005).

Charles S. Doskow, The State Farm Punitive Damage Multiplier in the Courts: Early Returns, 17 St. Thomas Law Review 61 (2004). The St. Thomas Law Review, 16401 NW 37th Avenue, Miami Gardens, FL 33054

Laura Clark Fey, et al., The Supreme Court Raised Its Voice: Are the Lower Courts Getting the Message? Punitive Damages Trends After State Farm v. Campbell, 56 Baylor Law Review 807 (2004).

William E. Foster, Case Note, Attorneys' Windfalls and Society's Pit-falls: Butt v. Evans Law Firm, P.A., Attorneys' Fees in Class Action Suits Against Governmental Entities, 57 Arkansas Law Review 627 (2004).

Travis Hargrove, Case Note, Liability for Costs of Litigation That Accrue After Litigation Is Complete: Costs...