[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.at 499 n.3 (discussing minor-ity plaintiff s susceptibility to emotional distress).64.Byrd v.Richardson-Greenshields Securities, Inc.552 So.2d 1099, 1104 (Fla.1989).65.Horodyskyi v.Karanian, 32 P.3d 470, 479 (Colo.2001).66.Byrd, 552 So.2d at 1104.Notes to pp.77 81 | 205 67.See Kathryn Abrams, The New Jurisprudence of Sexual Harassment, 83 Cornell L.Rev.1169, 1217 20 (1998); Katherine M.Franke, What s Wrong with Sexual Harassment? 49 Stan.L.Rev.691, 696 (1997); Lu-in Wang, The Transforming Power of Hate : Social CognitionTheory and the Harms of Bias-Related Crime, 71 S.Cal.L.Rev.47, 119 (1997); R.A.Lenhardt,Understanding the Mark: Race, Stigma, and Equality in Context, 79 N.Y.U.L.Rev.803, 836(2004).68.See Beth A.Quinn, The Paradox of Complaining: Law, Humor, and Harassment in theEveryday Work World, 25 Law & Soc.Inquiry 1151, 1167 71 (2000); Catharine A.MacKin-non, Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination 27 28 (YaleUniv.Press 1979).69.See e.g., Corne v.Bausch & Lomb, 390 F.Supp.161 (D.Ariz.1975).70.Keeton, supra note 31, 6, at 29.71.See Chamallas, Discrimination and Outrage, supra note 19, at 2154 61 (discussingearly solicitation cases).72.Calvert Magruder, Mental and Emotional Disturbance in the Law of Torts, 49 Harv.L.Rev.1033, 1055 (1936).73.Lisa R.Pruitt, On the Chastity of Women All Property in the World Depends : Injuryfrom Sexual Slander in the Nineteenth Century, 78 Ind.L.J.965 (2003).74.Lisa Pruitt, Her Own Good Name: Two Centuries of Talk about Chastity, 63 Md.L.Rev.401, 458 89 (2004).75.Orit Kamir, Framed: Women in Law and Film 6 (Duke Univ.Press 2006).76.Law v.Canada (Minster of Employment & Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R.497, 530(S.C.C Mar.25, 1999.); Halpern v.Toronto, 36 R.F.L.(5th) 127 (O.C A.June 10, 2003).SeeAnn Scales, Legal Feminism: Activism, Lawyering and Legal Theory 74 76 (NYU Press2006) (discussing the Canadian vision of equality).77.See Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry.Co.v.White, 548 U.S.53, 71 (2006) (adopt-ing reasonable person in plaintiff s position as the standard in retaliation cases); MarthaChamallas, Introduction to Feminist Legal Theory 242 45 (2d ed.2003) (discussingreasonable woman standard).Chapter 41.See John C.P.Goldberg & Benjamin C.Zipursky, The Restatement (Third) and thePlace of Duty in Negligence Law, 54 Vand.L.Rev.657 (2001); David Owen, Duty Rules, 54Vand.L.Rev.767 (2001); Robert L.Rabin, The Duty Concept in Negligence Law: A Com-ment, 54 Vand.L.Rev.787 (2001); Ernest J.Weinrib, The Passing of Palsgraf? 54 Vand L.Rev.803 (2001).2.Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm 7(b) (Proposed FinalDraft No.1, April 6, 2005) (noting that in exceptional cases, when an articulated coun-tervailing principle or policy warrants denying or limiting liability in a particular class ofcases, a court may decide that the defendant has no duty ).3.There is also no general duty to protect against economic loss unaccompanied byphysical property loss.The protection of economic interests, however, is principally pro-tected by contract law.4.See Martha Chamallas, Removing Emotional Harm from the Core of Tort Law, 54 Vand.L.Rev.751 (2001).206 | Notes to pp.82 89 5.See Wex S.Malone, Torts in a Nutshell: Injuries to Family, Social and Trade Relations(1979); Joseph W.Glannon, The Law of Torts: Examples and Explanations 244 45 (3d ed.2005).6.See Martha Chamallas & Linda K.Kerber, Women, Mothers and the Law of Fright: AHistory, 88 Mich.L Rev.814, 824 34 (1990) (tracing the rationale for denying recovery inearly cases).7.Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm 2 (TentativeDraft No.5, April 4, 2007) (Scope Note).8.See e.g., Rodrigues v.State, 472 P.2d 509, 519 20 (Haw.1970); Sinn v.Burd, 404 A.2d672, 678 79 (Pa.1979); W.Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 54, at 360 (5th student ed.1984); Peter A.Bell, The Bell Tolls: Toward a Full Recovery forPsychic Injury, 36 U.Fla.L.Rev.333, 351 (1984); Robert J.Rhee, A Principled Solution forNegligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims, 36 Ariz.St.L.J.805, 831 36 (2004).9.It has not been a straight-line trend toward liberalization.Notable plaintiff victoriesof the 1970s were curbed in the 1980s, when courts and legislatives cut back on liabilityin the name of tort reform
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]