Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:42:18 -0600

From: Russell Brown

Subject: Long Judgments

As to the shorter US decisions, I have always assumed that Geoff's first suggestion - a wider consensus on fundamentals - explains them. They also display a certain economy of language which Canadian (appellate) decisions generally do not. I will defer to anything reasonable my colleague Yahya might have to say on this, though.

Although I have not sat down and counted words, some otherwise run-of-the-mill recent tort decisions out of BC and Alberta seem to me to have become inordinately (but not excruciatingly) long, I think because of difficulties courts are having in understanding and applying Cooper v. Hobart. But perhaps it is unfair to brand such decisions "prolix" since the judges were merely trying their best to grapple with a cumbersome test.

Russ

>>> Geof McLay 07/26/06 12:42 PM >>>

Do we need a bit of comparative perspective?

I guess the question I have as someone who has been teaching a US first year torts for the first time is why US tort decisions appear a lot shorter - is there a greater consensus as to the basics (perhaps because of the restatement process?), a different legal method, or an American avoidance of addressing the big duty issues that we so delight in?

Second are tort decisions actually longer than other major decisions, or are we all concerned about just a small fraction of the tort output. Is tort law just in a bad phase? By rough assumption is that the High Court of Australia is pretty long on most things?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>