Restatement (Second) of Torts

Restatement (Second) of Torts
Coolcaesar at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · source
Name	Restatement (Second) of Torts
Author	American Law Institute
Country	United States
Language	English
Subject	Tort law
Publisher	American Law Institute
Pub date	1965–1979

Restatement (Second) of Torts presents a comprehensive synthesis of United States common law on torts produced by the American Law Institute between 1965 and 1979. It sought to clarify and modernize principles articulated in the original Restatement and to guide courts, scholars, and practitioners in areas such as negligence, strict liability, and intentional torts. The work has been cited by state high courts, federal courts, and commentators in disputes involving products, medical practice, and public safety.

Background and purpose

The project arose within the American Law Institute as a successor effort to the original Restatement prepared by figures connected to the American Bar Association, the Harvard Law School, and jurists influenced by precedents from the United States Supreme Court and state high courts such as the New York Court of Appeals. Drafting reflected debates traced to rulings like Donoghue v Stevenson and doctrinal shifts after decisions from the Warren Court era. Influential participants included reporters with affiliations to institutions such as Yale Law School, Columbia Law School, and the University of Chicago Law School, aiming to reconcile holdings from jurisdictions including California, New York, Illinois, and Texas.

Compilation and publication

The compilation process followed the ALI’s established procedure of appointing reporters, advisers, and an elected membership that reviewed drafts at annual meetings in venues associated with legal culture such as Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.. Reporters convened panels including professors from Stanford Law School, judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and practitioners from firms linked to bar associations like the New York State Bar Association. Tentative drafts were debated alongside contemporaneous scholarship appearing in journals like the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, and the Columbia Law Review before final volumes were published and distributed to law libraries at institutions including Georgetown University Law Center and the University of Michigan Law School.

Major topics and Restatement sections

Key topics addressed include standards of care in negligence (Sections on duty and breach), causation (including proximate cause), breach allocations involving doctrines linked to decisions such as Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.-era analysis, and the articulation of strict liability which intersected with products liability developments exemplified by rulings in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products debates. The Restatement covers intentional torts, defamation, invasion of privacy, emotional distress, and economic loss principles; it enumerates remedies and defenses discussed alongside scholarship from commentators at Northwestern University School of Law and case law emerging from circuits such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Influence and legal authority

State supreme courts including those of California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Minnesota have cited the Restatement when adapting common law standards in opinions that reference doctrines refined by jurists linked to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and the New Jersey Supreme Court. Federal courts, including the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, have relied on its formulations in diversity and federal common law matters. Legal scholars at schools like Cornell Law School and institutions such as the Brookings Institution have treated the Restatement as persuasive authority in treatises and amicus briefs filed before tribunals including the United States Supreme Court.

Criticisms and revisions

Criticism came from academics associated with movements at Harvard Law School and critics influenced by realist jurisprudence tied to scholars at Columbia University and the University of Chicago who argued that certain sections failed to reflect empirical consumer protection concerns highlighted in litigation such as product-safety suits in California. Practitioners from bar groups including the American Trial Lawyers Association and commentators from law reviews raised issues about the Restatement’s treatment of proximate cause and the balance between fault and strict liability. These critiques prompted targeted revisions, supplements, and debates within ALI membership meetings, and informed subsequent projects leading toward a later third Restatement.

Notable cases citing the Restatement

Prominent opinions citing the Restatement include decisions from the California Supreme Court in product-liability matters, rulings from the New York Court of Appeals on negligence standards, and federal appellate opinions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. High-profile state cases discussing duty and breach referenced the Restatement alongside precedent from the Iowa Supreme Court and the Ohio Supreme Court, while federal decisions in diversity actions from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois invoked its sections on causation and damages.

Legacy and relation to Restatement (Third) of Torts

The Second Restatement’s legacy is evident in how the American Law Institute approached the later Restatement (Third) of Torts; debates during the Third Restatement’s drafting drew on foundations laid by reporters and advisers who participated in the Second project and who held appointments at institutions such as Georgetown University Law Center and Duke University School of Law. Courts and commentators continue to compare formulations from the Second with revisions in the Third when evaluating liability doctrines in cases before tribunals like the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and state high courts such as the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Category:Tort law