IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v27y1988i10p1071-1084.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collective judicial management of mass toxic tort controversies: Lessons and issues from the agent orange litigation

Author

Listed:
  • Novey, Lawrence B.

Abstract

Viewing the Agent Orange litigation as a case study, this article explores the feasibility and desirability of strengthening the powers of the courts to manage toxic tort controversies en masse. The Agent Orange lawsuit, brought on behalf of potentially millions of Vietnam War veterans and family members, charged that herbicides used for military purposes during the war caused a wide range of health problems. This article first reviews the current national debate over how mass toxic tort controversies should be handled, including key legislative reform options, and describes how attention is increasingly focused on ways that the court system might better cope with mass toxic torts. The principal events of the Agent Orange litigation are then summarized, by which the litigation was consolidated into a massive class action, the class action was settled, and a streamlined plan for distributing the settlement fund was adopted. The article evaluates the outcome of the litigation, and discusses whether the solution there can and should be broadly applied to other mass toxic tort cases. This question depends, in part, on a series of complex legal and practical issues, but the author suggests that the question will also depend on what institutional role we expect the judiciary to play within society.

Suggested Citation

  • Novey, Lawrence B., 1988. "Collective judicial management of mass toxic tort controversies: Lessons and issues from the agent orange litigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 27(10), pages 1071-1084, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:27:y:1988:i:10:p:1071-1084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(88)90302-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:27:y:1988:i:10:p:1071-1084. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.