Customer Reviews

Liability

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Huber appears to be an attorney by education, if not in practice. He has researched the subject well, and has a dry wit in his comparisons that enliven the reading if the reader has any intellectual inclination. The book does not require heavy concentration but is not for a relaxing fireside session. Covering mainly recent decades where liberal legalists Huber terms "The Founders" significantly altered the face of American law in the area of liability, you will understand why he uses the term "revolution" when you finish this book. The anecdotes and historical cases are fascinating. This is absolutely de rigeur reading for anyone expecting or claiming expertise on the subject of liability on the American legal scene.

This book should be mandatory in tort law classes and for legislators. Even if one doesn't agree with the arguments and points made, one cannot discuss tort law intelligently without being able to address Huber's critique.

First, let me say that I agree with Mr. Williams assessment that corporatism is different than capitalism and that most of corporate America is an enemy of free markets. And I also agree that tort law has a place in our legal system to settle disputes.

That being said, Mr. Williams misses the mark when he states that juries rightly heard the evidence and rendered a verdict, many times against the corporations. What he doesn't mention is that the juries aren't fully informed of their rights and duties to judge the law, and are swayed by the jury instructions commanded by the judge that upholds the legal revolution Huber talks about. Does Mr. Williams really believe that a common law jury armed with the knowledge of their rights to make a common sense verdict would have found a lawnmower manufacturer liable for the stupidity of some idiot who stuck his hand underneath an operating lawnmower? That was the case in the Fifties that began the legal revolution Mr. Huber presents in his book.

And since when, Mr. Williams, is contract law not part of libertarian doctrine? Everyone should have the right to waive ones right to sue. In a free society, this aspect of freedom would bring forth many innovations of products that would make us all more prosperous, free, and safe. And that is one of the main arguments in Huber's book.

"The Legal Revolution and its Consequences" is a must read for all those looking for answers to a freer society.

Peter Huber discusses the rise of "modern" tort liability, starting post WWII and ending in the mid-80's. The book is a treastise on the need for tort reform, and a study of the consequences - both pro and con - of the boradening of tort liability and class action lawsuits.

Huber is unabashedly forward in his opinion that the legal system has changed for the worse, and looks to a insurance/risk sharing based solution to the problem. He analyzes the costs, the impacts on international business competitiveness and the negative consequences on scientific and drug research.

Huber's arguments are compelling and worthy of consideration - even though the book was written nearly 25 years ago. Some of the excesses appear to have been mitigated in the intervening years, but the need to understand the impacts and consequences of an activist bench may be more relevant now than it has been in 25 years as well.

There are many problems with Huber's book - most stemming from his confusion between capitalism and corporatism. The ever-increasing effectiveness of libability and the "tort cop" in holding anti-capitalist corporations accountable for their actions is a problem for corporatism, which is a good thing for capitalism and society. The "tort cop" effectively polices shoddy actors in the market and even puts them out of business when they are repeatedly negligent in hurting others.

Yet stories abound in the corporatist press such as a lady getting a million dollars because a fast food employee spilled coffee on her lap at the drive-thru window. These "stories" are presented by the media as ludicrous and a symptom of a legal system out of control and in need of reform. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Juries of individuals like you and I sat and listened to the evidence of both sides. They heard the corporations trying to excuse what they really did when they injured the other party. After deliberating, they found the corporation guilty who, in turn, sent out a misleading press release that was later printed by the media that the corporation owner also owned. This type of disinformation directed against our nation's effective tort system is mirrored in this book by Huber.

First Huber wants us to believe that we're all a bunch of idiots, especially when we sit on juries and try to decide a case brought by an injured party against the perpetrator. Huber maintains that we have unjustly given away billions of dollars in bizarre settlements; not that corporations have done billions of dollars of damage to individuals.

Huber says that this "began and ended with a wholesale repudiation of the law of contract". I would say that it began and has not ended with the State's creation of an artificial person in law - the corporation. Huber then surveys some history of contract law and examines some legal cases. He then makes the case for moving away from the role of tort as cop in law and allowing instead for consent, that way corporations cannot be held responsible for their actions and those with shoddy products and business practices can stay in business.

In short, more Orwellian double-speak to falsely alarm capitalists to run to the rescue of anti-capitalist corporations who, like their parent The State, seldom can do anything right.