Resolving mass toxic torts: myths and realities

by Deborah R. Hensler

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback19 pages $20.00 $16.00 20% Web Discount

Since the early 1980s, thinking about mass toxic torts has changed dramatically, and a consensus has emerged calling for substantial modifications in traditional court processes to improve the efficiency and equity of the mass claims resolution process. Debate about the type of modifications focuses on expanding the use of formal aggregative procedures such as class actions, consolidations, and multidistrict litigation. The debate over expanded use of aggregative procedures also revolves around the choice between different "versions of legal reality." When scholars and practitioners assess the appropriateness of applying various formal aggregative approaches to mass torts, they use the "traditional tort approach" as their standard for comparison. This paper argues that this version of legal reality is factitious, both with regard to process and substantive outcomes. The author discusses what empirical research shows about the divergence between the traditional image of the tort approach and the actual workings of the tort system, in both routine and mass tort cases. The discussion focuses on three issues: (1) lawyer-client relations and litigant control, (2) opportunities for adjudication, and (3) substantive outcomes.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Paper series. The paper was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.