The mid-term exam will be on Wednesday 16 February, same time and location as the regular class. It will be 1 1/2 hours long. You will write two essay questions, out of a list of four (your choice).

Here are the questions:

1. What, according to Aristotle, are the distinctions between corrective and distributive justice? Use examples to illustrate claims in both. Can claims in corrective and distributive justice conflict, on Aristotle's account?

2. Outline Coleman's criticisms of what he calls the "relational conception" of corrective justice. Do all or some of them apply to the view Weinrib outlines in "The Gains and Losses of Corrective Justice"? If not, explain why not. If so, how might Weinrib respond?

3. Does corrective justice ever require awarding punitive damages? For that matter, does corrective justice permit awarding punitive damages, or does the award of punitive damages constitute a corrective injustice? If the latter, may they be awarded anyway, in the pursuit of some other kind of justice?

Note: You can confine your answer to number 3, if you like, to the Ford Pinto case. The facts and judgments are summarized in the Hampton paper at the end of the reader, on pp. 1687-9

4. In your opinion, which between Sindell and Hymowitz represents the right remedial response to cases of that kind? Which is more consistent with corrective justice? If the right answer requires a departure from corrective justice, how might that be justified?

Note to question 3: You can confine your answer to question 3, if you like, to the Ford Pinto case. The facts and judgments are summarized in the Hampton paper at the end of the reader, on pp. 1687-9. You might also discuss, e.g., the McDonalds hot coffee case. The facts to that and other cases can be found at The Other Side of the Story (just click on the link) a web page written by lawyers. Lots of people think that tort is in need of reform for many reasons, not just the (apparent) excessiveness of punitive damages. See, for example, The American Tort Reform Association.

Note to question 4: As those of you who attended Wednesday's class know, the question of the role of government regulation in Sindell and Hymowitz came up. You'll also know that I didn't know the answer. Note that we don't need the answer to answer much of what question 4 raises: the problem is posed against the regime of manufacturer liability; the cases are puzzles given that the manufacturer's breached duties owed to the consumers of their drug. But, as I promised, I will look into the more complete story, and report the answer here as soon as I can, as well as going over it in Monday's class.