Tort

PODCAST: Mitigating Catastrophic AI Risk

tlconlineeditor

Summary:

On this episode of the Touro Law Review Podcast, Touro Law Professors Peter
Zablotsky and Gabriel Weil, engage in a discussion about artificial intelligence and how this technology poses potential risks. As AI becomes more prevalent and its technical capabilities extend further beyond its current capacity, there is both a danger for misuse and for AI system failures. Professor Weil addresses how AI risk poses a problem for law and policy and further raises the argument that tort law is the best way to govern AI risk.

Professor Weil further investigates potential AI liability under a negligence scheme, what precautionary measures can be taken, and whether this type of technology use can be categorized as abnormally dangerous which would require a lens of strict liability. Furthermore, Professor Zablotksy and Professor Weil contemplate the effectiveness of potential legislation and how judges may struggle to understand AI and its technical operations when applying the law. Professor Weil’s recent paper, “Tort Law as a Tool for Mitigating Catastrophic Risk from Artificial Intelligence,” will be of interest to anyone listening.

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review

Learn more about Professor Weil and Professor Zablotsky

Continue reading →

PODCAST: A Conversation About Opioid Litigation with Professor Adam Zimmerman

TLR BLOG

Earlier this year, in late June, an extraordinary class-action trial regarding the opioid crisis began in state court in Suffolk County. The plaintiffs, Suffolk and Nassau Counties and New York State, claim that the defendants – manufacturers and distributors of opioid drugs and retail pharmacies that sold them – created a “public nuisance” by aggressively selling these drugs in New York while downplaying their dangers and the possibility of addiction.

There were so many parties and lawyers involved that trial opened in the first-floor auditorium of Touro College, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center. The Hon. Jerry Garguilo is presiding over the case and has empaneled a jury. Under New York law, the plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial on their public nuisance claim; the case is believed to be the first opioid trial of its kind to go before a jury. While a number of defendants settled before or over the course of the trial, the case is still going on as of mid-November, now in a courtroom in Suffolk County.

In early October, Professor Adam Zimmerman, a Professor at Loyola Law School and the author of a number of scholarly articles about class action suits, discussed the legal and policy issues raised by the opioid trial in Suffolk County with Associate Dean Rodger Citron. Their wide-ranging discussion will be of interest to anyone following the opioid litigation in Suffolk County and around the nation, as well anyone who teaches or is taking Torts and Civil Procedure.

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review. 

Our guest today is Professor Adam Zimmerman

Continue reading →

Supreme Court to Soon Decide Whether Tribal Sovereignty Extends to Employees of Native American Businesses in Tort Actions

TLR BLOG

By Patrick Harty, J.D. Class of 2018 Touro Law Review  Junior Staff Member

On October 22, 2011, a car accident occurred near Norwalk Connecticut. William Clarke, who at the time was acting for his employer, caused the accident.[1] Ordinarily, this case would be solved through a simple tort law analysis.[2] Traditionally, if the employee acted within the ordinary scope of business, the employer would also be liable for the employee’s negligent conduct.[3] However, the employer in this instance is the Mohegan Sun Gaming Authority.[4] This is a business that is owned by the Mohegan Tribe, which is a federally recognized, sovereign Indian nation.[5] Sovereign immunities, which allow Native Americans to govern themselves, have long been recognized in the United States.[6] This immunity creates an assumption that “’until Congress acts, the tribes retain’ their historic sovereign authority.”[7] However, the area involving their employees still remains relatively gray, which is the reason for this Supreme Court case.[8] The victims, in this case, Brian and Michelle Lewis, are challenging the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling that the sovereign status given to American Indian tribes extends to its employees.[9] The case before the Supreme Court, which was argued on January 9, 2017, will attempt to answer the question of whether Native American’s sovereign status extends to its employees when they are acting within the scope of employment.

Regarding tribal sovereignty, the extent of the federal government’s power to intrude on sovereignty has remained unclear.[10] There are several competing theories regarding the extent of the federal government to control tribal sovereignty. Some believe that this right was never granted by the United States, but is inherent.[11] If the Supreme Court were to follow this theory, it would be presumed that all those associated by employment with a sovereign Native American tribe would also be granted sovereignty. Another competing theory is that this sovereign right is only”quasi-sovereignty.”[12] This means that the tribe’s sovereignty is within the discretion of the Federal government. The government can change, modify, or eliminate anything regarding the tribe’s sovereign status as it sees fit.[13]

When making their case, Petitioners argued that a case argued before the Second Circuit, Maxwell v. San Diego,[14] which determined that employees acting on behalf of a sovereign tribe may be sued in their individual capacity.[15] The Petitioners Lewis argue that Maxwell is just one example of why sovereign immunity should not extend to its employees.[16] However, this is the minority opinion amongst the Circuits, as no other Circuit had followed the logic behind that ruling.[17] It is also worth mentioning that in Maxwell, the claim was for gross negligence, where in this case the claim is just ordinary negligence.[18]

If the Supreme Court is to rule that employees are no longer granted sovereign immunity when acting within the scope of employment for a recognized tribe, there could be significant ramifications. Tribes would become more reluctant to hire employees, not within the tribe, and many could lose their jobs. However, if the Supreme Court is to rule that employees do maintain sovereign status, how far does this protection extend? This could then be applied to those doing business with Native Americans, and those businesses could potentially take advantage of the ruling in order to take part in deals that would be recognized by the government as illegal. If the Supreme Court is to rule that sovereign status extends to employees working for a recognized tribe, it must do so with specificity in order for this to not extend to other areas of business. Regardless of the outcome, this upcoming Supreme Court decision will have a profound effect on the extent to which Native American Sovereign Immunity extends.

[1] Lewis v. Clarke, 137 S. Ct. 31 (2016).

[2] See generally, Christine W. Young, Respondeat Superior: A Clarification and Broadening of the Current Scope of Employment Test, 30 Santa Clara L. Rev 599 (1990) (Providing a generally understanding of the traditional views of the tort law surrounding employer liability).

[3] Lewis v. Clarke, 137 S. Ct. 31 (2016).

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] See, Alexander Hogan, Protecting Native American Communities by Preserving Sovereign Immunity and Determining the Place of Tribal Businesses in the Federal Bankruptcy Code, 43 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 569, 571 (2012) (providing a background into Native America sovereign immunity).

[7] Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct 2024, 2027 (2014).

[8] Lewis v. Clarke, 137 S. Ct. 31 (2016).

[9] Id.

[10] Sue Woodrow, Tribal Sovereign Immunity, An Obstacle for Non-Indians doing Business in Indian Country, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (July 1, 1998), https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/community-dividend/tribal-sovereign-immunity-an-obstacle-for-nonindians-doing-business-in-indian-country.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Maxwell v. City of San Diego, 697 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2012).

[15] Id. at 955.

[16] Id.

[17] Lewis v. Clarke, 137 S. Ct. 31 (2016).

[18] Id.