PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

"McTorts"



How biased is the legal academy? Caroline Forell, who teaches torts at the University of Oregon Law School, has published a paper (h/t Torts Prof via Situationist) that discusses the McDonald's hot coffee case for several pages without once acknowledging the arguments against liability. At least when I give my Law of McDonald's talk, I give both sides of the story. Forell is in such a bubble that she thinks she can premise her argument on the idea that the Liebeck case is aspirational and tort reformers are wrong and "fictionaliz[ing]" by merely asserting it. And none of her editors would think to ask if she's being one-sided and two law blogs can link to it without even thinking about being a wee bit skeptical about what most people would correctly consider an outlandish argument.

Needless to say, Forell also defends the bogus obesity suits against McDonald's.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.