Misusing the "No Duty" Doctrine in Tort Decisions: Following the Restatement (Third) of Torts Would Yield Better Decisions
Focusing on a recent California Supreme Court decision, Verdugo v. Target Corp., the
author analyzes the “no duty” doctrine and its improper use in recent tort decisions. He
argues that too many US appellate courts are misapplying the “no duty” doctrine by using
it in situations in which they are actually deciding whether there has been a breach of the
duty of care. The author places recent applications of the “no duty” doctrine in the context
of recommendations made by the American Law Institute, and suggests that the case law
would benefit if the courts reflected upon the relative roles of judges and juries and followed
the guidance of the Restatement (Third) of Torts.
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.