Baylor Law Review
This Article joins the enormous and growing body of literature examining the need for reform of toxic tort remedies for cases of exposure to hazardous substances released into the environment. It is different from most other treatments of the issue in one important respect--it does not advocate reform of the present tort law system in any fundamental way. Indeed, it is argued that the central feature of the present system--the requirement that the plaintiff alleging injury resulting from defendant's release of hazardous substances establish proof of causation by a preponderance of the evidence--is essential for maintaining a rational public policy toward compensation of hazardous substance exposure injuries. That requirement is best implemented through a tort law system requiring victims to identify and sue alleged bad actors, and defendants proven to have caused injury to compensate their victims fully.
Toxic Tort Remedies: The Case Against the "Superduper Fund" and Other Reform Prososals, 38 Baylor Law Review. 597
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/530