Articles
| VOLUME
25 |
Fall 1995
|
NUMBER
1 |
|
Accommodating Pregnancy in the Workplace
|
Deborah A. Calloway |
| Professor Calloway discusses the need for employers to accommodate pregnancy in the workplace. She examines the ways in which the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 interact with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 in supporting the obligation to accommodate. Professor Calloway proffers that accommodating pregnancy should be viewed as a legal obligation to promote the health of pregnant women and their children. Finally, she presents an approach to accommodating pregnant employees through the use of current anti-discrimination statutes. |
|
|
|
Three Ring Circus Six Years Later
|
Thomas C. Marks, Jr. |
| Professor Marks begins his Article by expanding upon Justice Scalia's opposition to balancing of interests which was alluded to in the1989 version of the Three Ring Circus. Professor Marks also proffers two other criticisms to the approach of balancing of interests which the Court has used in interpreting the Constitution. Finally, he examines the ways in which the Court has dealt with the balancing of interests approach in the past six years. |
|
|
|
Good Things Come in Well-Defined Packages: The Simple Elegance of Travelers Indemnity Co. v. The Sam Houston
|
Jeffrey V. Brown |
| In this Article, Mr. Brown examines the definition of the word "package" in maritime law. The definition of "package" is important because the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act limits a carrier's liability for lost or damaged freight to $500 per package. Thus, carriers and shippers often battle about the meaning of "package." Courts have yet to decide on a uniform definition, leaving carriers and shippers in a thicket of differing law. This Essay explores this convoluted area of law, including the Ninth Circuit's approach in Travelers Indemnity Co. v. The Sam Houston. Mr. Brown proposes that the Ninth Circuit's simple definition of "package" allows the shipping industry, lawyers and courts easily to determine the limits of a carrier's liability. This Essay concludes with an appeal for uniformity, calling for other courts to adopt the Ninth Circuit's definition. |
|
|
|
The Persian Gulf War Syndrome: Rethinking Government Tort Liability
|
William Brook Lafferty |
| Mr. Lafferty analyzes the prospect of holding the United States government liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the so-called "Persian Gulf War Syndrome." Drawing from his experience as a United States Army officer during Desert Storm, Mr. Lafferty suggests a possible cause of the Gulf War Syndrome. He then discusses the United States' tort liability to servicemembers who may be suffering from the syndrome, and the likelihood that any government liability will be barred by the Feres Doctrine, a judicial creation that limits the government's liability to servicemembers. After outlining a theory under which potential claimants might skirt the Feres bar, Mr. Lafferty concludes that the traditional judicial deference to the military will ultimately prevail. Finally, he proposes a modification of the Feres Doctrine to permit claims for intentional torts inflicted on active duty servicemembers by the government. |
|
|
|
Florida's Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine
|
Sarah E. Williams |
| In this Comment, Ms. Williams discusses Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine and examines the recent decision of Hertz Corp. v. Jackson. The dangerous instrumentality expanded to hold car rental companies liable for the lessee's negligence, even when the lessee violated the rental agreement. Hertz signaled a change from this policy by shifting the burden of an accident loss from the owner of a vehicle to the accident victim. Ms. Williams proffers that the Florida courts should take the statistical approach rather than the unique and individual approach when deciding dangerous instrumentality cases. Finally, Ms. Williams urges Florida courts to look at the broader picture of tort law and its impact on society. |
|
|
|
Tipping the Scales for the Private Property Owner: Dolan v. City of Tigard
|
Sarah Long |
| Ms. Long's Note examines the recent Supreme Court decision of Dolan v. City of Tigard. Dolan establishes a new test to determine whether a governmental exaction of land is considered a taking. The Court held that the degree of the exaction must bear a necessary relationship to the expected impact of the proposed development. Ms. Long argues this new test imposes an undue burden on the government and that the Court erred in forging this new test because it did not consider precedent. Most significantly, Ms. Long contends that, by shifting the burden to the government, Dolan will obstruct government efforts to protect the public's health and safety. |
|
|
Stetson Law Review • 1401 61st Street South • Gulfport, Florida 33707
phone: (727) 562-7800 ext. 7955 • fax: (727) 347-4873 • lrmarked@law.stetson.edu
|
Gulfport, Florida 33707-3299