The 1980s was the era of mass personal injury litigation. Hundreds of thousands of people sued scores of corporations for losses due to injuries or diseases that they attributed to catastrophic events, pharmaceutical products, medical devices, or toxic substances. The civil justice system has not responded well to the challenge of handling mass torts, and many innovations have been proposed to improve processing of these cases. This article examines the broader context in which these innovations must function. The analysis suggests that current proposals for improving mass tort processing are not promising because they do not deal directly with the uncertainties that flow from the factual and legal complexity of the cases, do not address the inherent conflicts of interest between attorneys and their clients in mass tort cases, ignore the fact the asymmetric risks facing plaintiffs' attorneys and defendants drive the litigation forward, and do not offer clear solutions to issues associated with future claimants-those who may discover sometime in the future that they were harmed by exposure to the product.
Originally published in: Brooklyn Law Review, v. 59, no. 3, Fall 1993, pp. 961-1063.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.
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/research-integrity.
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.