• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship
    • Faculty Scholarship Series
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship
    • Faculty Scholarship Series
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of openYLSCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Procedural Innovations, Sloshing Over: A Comment on Deborah Hensler, <i>A Glass Half Full, a Glass Half Empty: The Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Mass Personal Injury Litigation</i>

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    Procedural_Innovations__Sloshi ...
    Size:
    532.2Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    Resnik, Judith
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/5304
    Abstract
    Deborah Hensler has provided us with new understanding of contemporary procedural innovations. In her thoughtful essay, Dr. Hensler offers an overview of both the history of mass torts and the current methodologies of decisionmaking. She then provides a sustained critique that these methods have not been focused on "enhanc[ing] the parties' control over litigation outcomes or process." In making her argument, Dr. Hensler narrows the definition of alternative dispute resolution ("ADR"). She rejects the common usage of the phrase as an umbrella that expansively embraces procedures ranging from judicial settlement efforts to court-annexed arbitration and summary jury trials. In contrast, Dr. Hensler defines ADR to be only those procedures that, "compared to the traditional litigation process of adversarial negotiation and trial, enhance parties' control over litigation outcome and process." After a comprehensive review of the innovations in contemporary mass tort litigation, Dr. Hensler concludes that a good deal of the innovation should not be classified as "ADR," and that, in general, procedures in mass torts have not succeeded in "bring[ing] plaintiffs into the dialogue on mass personal injury litigation." I share many of Dr. Hensler's concerns. Thus, my commentary will not focus on areas of disagreement but on the broader lessons to be drawn from her discussion of ADR in mass torts. Below, I consider the changing roles of judges, the interaction between roles taken in large-scale cases and so-called "ordinary" litigation, and the effects of methods of paying plaintiffs' attorneys in large-scale cases on, in Hensler's words, "bring[ing] plaintiffs into the dialogue on mass personal injury litigation."
    Collections
    Faculty Scholarship Series

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2023)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.