Document Type


Publication Date


Publication Information

13 William Mitchell Law Review 373 (1987)


Legislative tort reform proposals have attempted to restore what is perceived to be an imbalance in the tort-litigation system by limiting tort recoveries. One of the motivating factors behind tort reform proposals is a concern that tort law has deviated from a fault-based system of liability. It is this concern over the structure of the fault system in Minnesota that is the subject of this Article. This Article examines Minnesota Supreme Court opinions of the 20th Century to determine whether the court's decisions deviated from a fault-based system of liability. The focus is on change, accepted and rejected. The purpose is to determine whether the claim that the tort system is based on a primary judicial desire to compensate victims of accidents can be established, and what implications the court's decisions might have for determining what type of tort reform legislation should be enacted, at least insofar as claims are made that the deep-pocket or social insurance principle justifies change.