Feminist judgments : rewritten tort opinions
著者
書誌事項
Feminist judgments : rewritten tort opinions
(Feminist judgments series : rewritten judicial opinions)
Cambridge University Press, 2020
- : pbk
大学図書館所蔵 全1件
  青森
  岩手
  宮城
  秋田
  山形
  福島
  茨城
  栃木
  群馬
  埼玉
  千葉
  東京
  神奈川
  新潟
  富山
  石川
  福井
  山梨
  長野
  岐阜
  静岡
  愛知
  三重
  滋賀
  京都
  大阪
  兵庫
  奈良
  和歌山
  鳥取
  島根
  岡山
  広島
  山口
  徳島
  香川
  愛媛
  高知
  福岡
  佐賀
  長崎
  熊本
  大分
  宮崎
  鹿児島
  沖縄
  韓国
  中国
  タイ
  イギリス
  ドイツ
  スイス
  フランス
  ベルギー
  オランダ
  スウェーデン
  ノルウェー
  アメリカ
注記
Includes bibliographical references and index
内容説明・目次
内容説明
By rewriting both canonical and lesser-known tort cases from a feminist perspective, this volume exposes gender and racial bias in how courts have categorized and evaluated harm stemming from pre-natal malpractice, pregnancy loss, domestic violence, sexual assault and harassment, invasion of privacy, and the award of economic and non-economic damages. The rewritten opinions demonstrate that when confronted with gendered harm to women, courts have often distorted or misapplied conventional legal doctrine to diminish the harm or deny recovery. Bringing this implicit bias to the surface can make law students, and lawyers and judges who craft arguments and apply tort doctrines, more aware of inequalities of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation or identity. This volume shows the way forward to make the basic doctrines of tort law more responsive to the needs and perspectives of traditionally marginalized people, in ways that give greater value to harms that they disproportionately experience.
目次
- Preface
- Part I. Introduction: 1. Introduction to the feminist judgments: rewritten torts opinions project Martha Chamallas and Lucinda M. Finley
- Part II. The Classics: 2. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928) Taunya Lovell Banks and Maurice Dyson
- 3. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 150 P.2d 436 (Cal. 1944) Mary J. Davis and Zanita Fenton
- 4. Farwell v. Keaton, 240 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. 1976) E Christi Cunningham and Sarah L. Swan
- 5. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976) Jaimie R. Abrams, Sharmila Lodhia and Stephanie Wildman
- Part III. Intentional Torts: 6. Robinson v. Cutchin, 140 F. Supp. 2d 488 (D. Md. 2001) Yvonne Lindgren and Alena Allen
- 7. Guthrie v. Conroy, 567 S.E.2d 403 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) L. Camille Hebert and Sandra Sperino
- 8. Lyman v. Huber, 10 A.3d 707 (Me. 2010) Caroline Forell, Jeffrey Thomas and Leah Thomas
- 9. Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 201 Cal. Rptr. 665 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) Anna Lauren Hoffman and Scott Skinner-Thompson
- Part IV. Negligence and Vicarious Liability: 10. Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd., 989 P.2d 121 (Cal. 1999) Jessica Hynes and Yifat Bitton
- 11. Broadnax v. Gonzalez, 809 N.E.2d 645 (N.Y. 2004) Elizabeth Kukura, Eileen Kaufman and Laura Dooley
- 12. Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. 1993) Lisa R. Pruitt and Cristina Tilley
- 13. Emerson v. Magendantz, 689 A.2d 409 (R.I. 1997) Lucinda M. Finley and Katherine Silbaugh
- 14. McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc., 826 F.2d 1554 (7th Cir. 1987) Molly Wilder and Hannah Brenner
- 15. Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital, 907 P.2d 358 (Cal. 1995) Christine M. Tamer and Stacey Tovino
- Part V. Damages: 16. G.M.M. v. Kimpson, 116 F. Supp. 3d 126 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) Twila L. Perry, Jennifer B. Wriggins and Sara Cressey
- 17. Simpkins v. Grace Brethren Church of Delaware, Ohio, 73 N.E.3d 122 (Ohio 2016) Jill Wieber Lens and Shaakirrah Sanders.
「Nielsen BookData」 より