1. Lytton, Timothy D., Holding Bishops Accountable: How Lawsuits Helped the Catholic Church Confront Clergy Sexual Abuse (Harv. Univ. Press 2008)Google Scholar.

2. See infra notes 21-29 and accompanying text.

3. “It bears emphasis at the outset that the clergy sexual abuse within the Catholic Church is part of a larger phenomenon of child sexual abuse that occurs in other religious denominations and in secular institutions throughout society. Moreover, there has been a great deal of clergy sexual abuse litigation against other religious denominations.”

4. See infra note 7 and accompanying text.

5. According to the Pew Foundation, 24% of United States citizens associate with Catholic Tradition. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, U.S. Religion Landscape Survey, http://religions.pewforum.org/maps.

6. See Turner, Darrell, Litigating Clergy Sex Abuse, Nat'l Catholic Rep., 10 3, 2008, available at http://www.ncronline.org/node/2254Google Scholar.

7. “Expanding coverage of [a] theme is self-reinforcing.”

8. Dean Schwartz, now a practicing attorney, previously served as dean of the University of Cincinnati School of Law.

9. See, e.g., The Wall Street Journal Law Blog, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/08/14/advice-for-mattel-courtesy-of-shook-hardys-victor-schwartz/ (Aug. 14, 2007).

10. Id.

11. Id.

12. Id.

13. Id.

14. Id.

15. See Cupp, Richard L. Jr., Tort Reform or Tort Restriction: Rhetoric as Scorekeeper, in Andrew Popper, Popper's Materials on Tort Reform (Thompson/West 2010)Google Scholar. Notably, in the specific area of sexual abuse of children, some tort reform has benefitted plaintiffs. For example, many jurisdictions have adjusted statutes of limitations to enable lawsuits by adults who were molested as children. See, e.g., Sheehan v. Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, CA. No. 07C-11-234, slip op. (Del. Feb. 22, 2011) (addressing Delaware's abolishment of a statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse).

16. Id.

17. Id.

18. See infra note 20 and accompanying text.

19. See supra notes 2-5 and accompanying text.

20. Citing Sugarman, Stephen D., Comparing Tobacco and Gun Litigation, in Suing the Gun Industry: A Battle at the Crossroads of Gun Control and Mass Torts 196–222 (Lytton, Timothy D. ed., Univ. Mich. Press 2005)Google Scholar; Rabin, Robert L., The Third Wave of Tobacco Tort Litigation, in Regulating Tobacco 176–206 (Rabin, Robert L. & Sugarman, Stephen D. eds., Oxford Univ. Press 2001)Google Scholar; Rostron, Allen, Lawyers, Guns & Money: The Rise and Fall of Tort Litigation Against the Firearms Industry, 46 Santa Clara L. Rev. 481 (2006)Google Scholar.

21. Distinguishing legitimacy challenges to tobacco and firearms lawsuits from legitimacy challenges to clergy abuse lawsuits.

22. See Linden, Allen M., Tort Law as Ombudsman, 51 Can. Bar Rev. 155 (1973)Google Scholar.

23. Justice Linden's ombudsman theory was endorsed by the prominent scholar and American Law Institute Reporter John W. Wade in 1986. See Wade, John W., Tort Law as Ombudsman, 65 Or. L. Rev. 309 (1986)Google Scholar.

24. Id.

25. See, e.g., Linden, Allen M., The Joy of Torts, in Stephane Beaulac, Stephen G.A. Pitel & Jennifer L. Schultz, The Joy of Torts 474 (LexisNexis Butterworths 2003) (observing that “there are still some warts on torts”)Google Scholar.

26. See generally id.

27. Cupp, Richard L. Jr., International Tobacco Litigation's Evolution as a United States Torts Law Export: To Canada and Beyond?, 38 Pepp. L. Rev. 283 (2011)Google Scholar.

28. Id.

29. See supra notes 20-21 and accompanying text.