Show simple item record

Toxic Tort Remedies: The Case Against the "Superduper Fund" and Other Reform Prososals

dc.contributor.authorRuhl, J. B.
dc.identifier.citation38 Baylor L. Rev. 597 (1986)en_US
dc.description.abstractThis Article joins the enormous and growing body of literature examining the need for reform of toxic tort remedies for cases of exposure to hazardous substances released into the environment. It is different from most other treatments of the issue in one important respect--it does not advocate reform of the present tort law system in any fundamental way. Indeed, it is argued that the central feature of the present system--the requirement that the plaintiff alleging injury resulting from defendant's release of hazardous substances establish proof of causation by a preponderance of the evidence--is essential for maintaining a rational public policy toward compensation of hazardous substance exposure injuries. That requirement is best implemented through a tort law system requiring victims to identify and sue alleged bad actors, and defendants proven to have caused injury to compensate their victims fully.en_US
dc.format.extent1 document (65 pages)en_US
dc.publisherBaylor Law Reviewen_US
dc.subject.lcshToxic torts -- United Statesen_US
dc.subject.lcshLaw reform -- United Statesen_US
dc.titleToxic Tort Remedies: The Case Against the "Superduper Fund" and Other Reform Prososalsen_US

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record