Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T18:58:20.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Defense of Asbestos Tort Litigation: Rethinking Legal Process Analysis in a World of Uncertainty, Second Bests, and Shared Policy‐Making Responsibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Jeb Barnes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A central question in American policy making is when should courts address complex policy issues, as opposed to defer to other forums? Legal process analysis offers a standard answer. It holds that judges should act when adjudication offers advantages over other modes of social ordering such as contracts, legislation, or agency rule making. From this vantage, the decision to use common law adjudication to address a sprawling public health crisis was a terrible mistake, as asbestos litigation has come to represent the very worst of mass tort litigation. This article questions this view, arguing that legal process analysis distorts the institutional choices underlying the American policy‐making process. Indeed, once one considers informational and political constraints, as well as how the branches of government can fruitfully share policy‐making functions, the asbestos litigation seems a reasonable and, in some ways, exemplary, use of judicial power.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , Winter 2009 , pp. 5 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamany, David, and Grossman, Joel. 1983. Support for the Supreme Court as a National Policymaker. Law and Policy Quarterly 5:405–37.Google Scholar
American Law Institute. 1965. Restatement (Second) of the Law of Torts. St. Paul, MN: American Law Institute Publishers.Google Scholar
Bardach, Eugene, and Kagan, Robert A. 1982. Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jeb. 1997. Bankrupt Bargain? Bankruptcy Reform and the Politics of Adversarial Legalism. Journal of Law & Politics 13:893–934.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jeb. 2004. Overruled? Legislative Overrides, Pluralism, and Contemporary Court‐Congress Relations. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jeb. 2007a. Bringing the Courts Back In: Interbranch Perspectives on the Role of Courts in American Politics and Policy Making. Annual Review of Political Science 10:25–43.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jeb. 2007b. Rethinking the Landscape of Tort Reform: Lessons from the Asbestos Case. Justice Systems Journal 28:157–81.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jeb. Forthcoming. Courts and the Puzzle of Institutional Stability and Change: Administrative Drift and Judicial Innovation in the Case of Asbestos. Political Research Quarterly (advance copy available at http://prq.sagepub.com (accessed September 4, 2008)).Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2006. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bell, Peter, and O'Connell, Jeffrey. 1997. Accidental Justice: The Dilemmas of Tort Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara. 2006. Understanding Public Confidence in American Courts. Journal of Politics 68:697–707.Google Scholar
Bhagavatula, Raji, Moody, Rebecca, and Russ, Jason. 2001. Asbestos: A Moving Target. Best's Review. (On file with the author.)Google Scholar
Breyer, Stephen G. 1982. Regulation and Its Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brickman, Lester. 1992. The Asbestos Claims Management Act of 1991: A Proposal to the United States Congress. Cardozo Law Review 13:1891–917.Google Scholar
Brodeur, Paul. 1986. Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos Industry on Trial. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Burke, Thomas F. 2001. The Rights Revolution Continues: Why New Rights Are Born (and Old Rights Rarely Die). Connecticut Law Review 33:1259–74.Google Scholar
Burke, Thomas F. 2002. Lawyers, Lawsuits, and Legal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory. 1986. Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 80:1209–26.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory, and Gibson, James. 1992. The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science 36:635–64.Google Scholar
Carrington, Paul D. 2007. Asbestos Lessons: The Consequences of Asbestos Litigation. Review of Litigation 26:583–612.Google Scholar
Carroll, Stephen J., Hensler, Deborah, Abrahamse, Allan, Gross, Jennifer, White, Michelle, Ashwood, Scott, and Sloss, Elizabeth. 2002. Asbestos Litigation Costs and Compensation: An Interim Report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute for Civil Justice.Google Scholar
Carroll, Stephen J., Hensler, Deborah, Gross, Jennifer, Sloss, Elizabeth, Schonlau, Matthias, Abrahamse, Allan, and Ashwood, J. Scott. 2005. Asbestos Litigation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute for Civil Justice.Google Scholar
Casey, Gregory. 1976. Popular Perceptions of Supreme Court Rulings. American Politics Quarterly 4:3–45.Google Scholar
Castleman, Barry. 2005. Asbestos Medical and Legal Aspects. Frederick, MD: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
Casper, Jonathan. 1976. The Supreme Court and National Policy Making. American Political Science Review 70:50–63.Google Scholar
Cauchon, Dennis. 1999. The Asbestos Epidemic: An Emerging Catastrophe. USA Today, February 8, 4.Google Scholar
Chayes, Abram. 1976. The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation. Harvard Law Review 89:1281–316.Google Scholar
Coffee, John C., Jr. 1995. Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action. Columbia Law Review 95:1343–465.Google Scholar
Derickson, Alan. 1998. The Anatomy of a Public Health Disaster. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Derthick, Martha. 2005. Up in Smoke: From Legislation to Litigation in Tobacco Politics, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Dror, Yehezkel. 1964. Muddling Through—Science or Inertia. Public Administration Review 24:153–75.Google Scholar
Easterbrook, Frank. 1983. Statutes’ Domains. University of Chicago Law Review 50:533–52.Google Scholar
Ely, John Hart. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Farber, Daniel A. 1989. Democracy and Disgust: Reflection on Public Choice. Chicago-Kent Law Review 65:161–76.Google Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm. 1992. Hollow Hopes, Flypaper, and Metaphors. Law & Social Inquiry 17 (4): 745–60.Google Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm, and Rubin, Edward. 1998. Judicial Policy‐Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, Lon. 1978. The Forms and Limits of Adjudication. Harvard Law Review 92:353–409.Google Scholar
Frymer, Paul. 2003. Acting When Elected Officials Won't: Federal Courts and Civil Rights Enforcement in U.S. Labor Relations, 1935–1985. American Political Science Review 97:483–99.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2004. What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good For? American Political Science Review 98:341–54.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, James, Caldeira, Gregory, and Baird, Vanessa L. 1998. On the Legitimacy of National High Courts. American Political Science Review 92:343–58.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2002. How Political Parties Can Use the Courts to Advance Their Agendas: Federal Courts in the United States, 1875–1891. American Political Science Review 96:511–24.Google Scholar
Gordon, Robert. 1984. Critical Legal Histories. Stanford Law Review 36:57–125.Google Scholar
Haltom, William, and McCann, Michael. 2004. Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hathaway, Oona. 2001. The Path Dependence of Law: The Course and Pattern of Legal Change in a Common Law System. Iowa Law Review 86:601–695.Google Scholar
Hausegger, Lori, and Baum, Lawrence. 1999. Inviting Congressional Action: A Study of Supreme Court Motivations in Statutory Interpretation. American Journal of Political Science 43:162–85.Google Scholar
Hensler, Deborah. 1992. Fashioning a National Resolution of Asbestos Personal Injury Litigation: A Reply to Professor Brickman. Cardozo Law Review 13:1967–90.Google Scholar
Hensler, Deborah. 2002. As Time Goes By: Asbestos Litigation after Amchem and Ortiz. Texas Law Review 80:1899–924.Google Scholar
Hensler, Deborah, Marquis, M. Susan, Abrahamse, Allan F., Berry, Sandra H., Ebener, Patricia, Lewis, Elizabeth, Lind, E. Allan, MacCoun, Robert, Manning, Willard, Rogowski, Jeanette A, and Vaiana, Mary. 1985. Asbestos in the Courts: the Challenge of Mass Toxic Torts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute for Civil Justice.Google Scholar
Hensler, Deborah, Carroll, Stephen, White, Michelle, and Goss, Jennifer. 2001. Asbestos Litigation in the U.S.: A New Look at an Old Issue. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute for Civil Justice.Google Scholar
Horowitz, David. 1977. The Courts and Social Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Huber, Peter. 1991. Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Judicial Conference. 1991. Report of the Judicial Conference on Asbestos Litigation. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A. 1994. Do Lawyers Cause Adversarial Legalism? A Preliminary Inquiry. Law & Social Inquiry 19 (1): 1–62.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A. 2001. Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Koniak, Susan P. 1995. Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc. Cornell Law Review 80:1045–158.Google Scholar
Kairys, David, ed. 1998. Introduction to The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique, 3rd ed. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kakalik, James, and Ross, Randy. 1983. Costs of Asbestos Litigation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute for Civil Justice.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Duncan. 1982. Distribution and Paternalist Motives in Contract and Tort Law, with Special Reference to Compulsory Terms and Unequal Bargaining Power. Maryland Law Review 41:563–658.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Duncan. 1997. A Critique of Adjudication. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John. 2003. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Komesar, Neil. 1994. Imperfect Alternatives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review 19:79–88.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. 1979. Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. Public Administration Review 39:517–26.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M. 1996. American Exceptionalism: A Double‐Edged Sword. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Litowitz, Douglas. 1997. Postmodern Philosophy of Law. Kansas: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Macey, Jonathan. 1986. Promoting Public Regarding Legislation through Statutory Interpretation: An Interest Group Model. Columbia Law Review 86:223–68.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catherine. 1987. Feminism Unmodified; Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, Thomas. 1989. Public Opinion and the Supreme Court. Boston, MA: Uniwn Hyman.Google Scholar
Mather, Lynn. 1998. Theorizing About Trial Courts: Lawyers, Policymaking, and Tobacco Litigation. Law & Social Inquiry 23 (4): 897–940.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael. 1992. Reform Litigation in Trial. Law & Social Inquiry 17 (4): 715–43.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael. 1994. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael. 1999. How the Supreme Court Matters in American Politics: New Institutionalist Perspectives. In The Supreme Court in American Politics, ed. Gillman, Howard and Clayton, Cornell, 67–97. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
McGovern, Francis. 1989. Resolving Mature Mass Tort Litigation. Boston Law Review 69:659–94.Google Scholar
Mealey's Litigation Report: Asbestos Bankruptcy. 2005. CRMC to Stop Accepting Reports Prepared by Silica MDL Doctors. E‐Mail Bulletin, September 14. (On file with author.)Google Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep. 1983. Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep. 1994. Between the Lines: Interpreting Welfare Rights. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep. 2004. Courts and Agencies. In Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective, ed. Miller, Mark and Barnes, Jeb, 89–104. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Menkel‐Meadow, Carrie J. 1988. Feminist Legal Theory, Critical Legal Studies, and Legal Education or Fem‐Crits Go to School. Journal of Legal Education 38:61–85.Google Scholar
Miller, Mark, and Barnes, Jeb, eds. 2004. Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F., and Tanenhaus, Joseph. 1968. Public Opinion and the United States Supreme Court: A Preliminary Mapping of Some Prerequisites for Court Legitimation of Regime Change. Law & Society Review 2:357–84.Google Scholar
Nelson, John R., Jr. 1985. Black Lung: A Study of Disability Compensation Policy Formation. Chicago: University of Chicago (School of Social Service Administration).Google Scholar
Neustadt, Richard E. 1990. Presidential Power and the Modern American Presidents. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Nonet, Phillippe. 1969. Administrative Justice. New York: Russell Sage Press.Google Scholar
OWCP Annual Report. 2001. Black Lung Benefits Act: Annual Report on the Administration of the Act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Peretti, Terri Jennings. 1999. In Defense of a Political Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, Mark A. 1990. Giving Money Away: Comparative Comments on Claims Resolution Facilities. Law and Contemporary Problems 53 (4): 113–36.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Polisar, D., and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1989. From Individual to System Blame: A Cultural Analysis of Historical Change in the Law of Torts. Journal of Policy History 1:129–55.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard. 1982. Economics, Politics, and the Reading of Statutes and the Constitution. University of Chicago Law Review 49:263–91.Google Scholar
Rabkin, Jeremy. 1989. Judicial Compulsions: How Public Law Distorts Public Policy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rhode, Deborah. 1990. Feminist Critical Legal Theories. Stanford Law Review 42:617–38.Google Scholar
Roggli, Victor, Oury, Tim, and Sporn, Thomas. 2004. Pathologies of Asbestos‐Associated Diseases. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald. 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rubin, Edward. 1996. The New Legal Process, the Synthesis of Discourse, and the Microanalysis of Institutions. Harvard Law Review 109:1393–438.Google Scholar
Rubin, Edward, and Feeley, Malcolm. 2003. Judicial Policy‐Making and Litigation Against the Government. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 5:617–63.Google Scholar
Sabel, Charles F., and Simon, William H. 1999. Destabilization Rights: How Public Law Litigation Succeeds. Harvard Law Review 113:1–83.Google Scholar
Sandler, Ross, and Schoenbrod, David. 2003. Democracy by Decree: What Happens When Courts Run Government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Scheingold, Stuart. 2004 [1974]. The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and Political Change, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Elinor P. 1986. Legislative and Judicial Responses to the Inadequacy of Compensation for Occupational Disease. Law and Contemporary Problems 49:151–82.Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter. 1986. Agent Orange on Trial: Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter. 1992. The Worst Should Go First: Deferral Registries in Asbestos Litigation. Judicature 75:318–28.Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter. 2000. The Limits of the Law. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Victor E., Behrens, Mark A., and Tedesco, Rochelle M. 2003. Congress Should Act to Resolve the National Asbestos Crisis: The Basis in Law and Public Policy for Meaningful Progress. South Texas Law Review 44:839–82.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Selikoff, Irving, Churg, Jacob, and Hammond, E. Cuyler. 1965. The Occurrence of Asbestos among Insulation Workers in the United States. Annal of the New York Academy of Science 32:139–55.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1964. Law and Politics in the Supreme Court: New Approaches to Political Jurisprudence. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1968. The Supreme Court and Administrative Agencies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1981. Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J., and Segal, Jeffrey A. 1999. Majority Rule of Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Barbara Ellen. 1987. Digging Our Own Graves: Coal Miners and the Struggle over Black Lung Disease. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Steinmo, Sven. 1994. American Exceptionalism Reconsidered: Culture or Institutions. In The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretation, ed. Dodd, Lawrence and Jillison, Calvin, 106–31. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Steinmo, Sven, and Watts, Jon. 1995. It's the Institutions, Stupid! Why Comprehensive National Insurance Always Fails in America. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 20:329–72.Google Scholar
Sugarman, Stephen D. 1989. Doing Away with Personal Injury Law: New Compensation Mechanisms for Victims, Consumers, and Business. New York: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 1993. The Partial Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 1996a. Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 1996b. Foreword: Leaving Things Undecided. Special Issue: The Supreme Court, 1995 Term. Harvard Law Review 110:6–101.Google Scholar
Tweedale, Geoffrey. 2000. Magic Mineral to Killer Dust: Turner & Newell and the Asbestos Hazard. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ursin, Edward. 1981. Judicial Creativity and Tort Law. George Washington Law Review 49:229–308.Google Scholar
Vinke, Harriet, and Wilthagen, Ton. 1992. The Non‐Mobilization of Law by Asbestos Victims in The Netherlands: Social Insurance Versus Tort‐Based Compensation. Amsterdam: Hugo Sinzheimer Institute (University of Amsterdam).Google Scholar
West, Robin. 1988. Jurisprudence and Gender. University of Chicago Law Review 55:1–72.Google Scholar
White, Michelle. 2004. Asbestos and the Future of Mass Torts. Journal of Economic Perspectives 18:183–204.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Jason E. 1999. From Criticism to Critique: Preserving the Radical Potential of Critical Legal Studies through a Re‐examination of Frankfurt School Critical Theory. Florida State University Law Review 26:701–42.Google Scholar
Willging, Thomas E. 1985. Asbestos Case Management: Pretrial and Trial Procedures. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Williamson, Oliver, ed. 1995. Transaction Cost Economics and Organization Theory. In Organization Theory: From Chester Barnard and Beyond, 207–256. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar