Abstract

For decades, courts have grappled with the tension between compensating victims of mass harms and maintaining fairness to defendants when causation is difficult to prove. This Article argues that the Supreme Court’s due process jurisprudence provides a relevant framework for navigating this tension. We contend that the Court over the last three decades has established a consistent due process approach in punitive damages and personal jurisdiction cases, which is rooted in antecedents tracing to the nineteenth century and relies on a nexus of interests that balances individual rights, state interests, and federalism concerns. This framework, we argue, has significant implications for evaluating the constitutionality of tort doctrines like market-share liability and innovator liability, which challenge traditional notions of causation. Our analysis reveals that these doctrines may be vulnerable in some applications to constitutional challenge under the Court’s modern due process approach. We trace the evolution of the Court’s jurisprudence, demonstrating how it emphasizes the relationship between plaintiff’s harm, defendant’s conduct, and the forum state’s interest. Applying this framework to market-share and innovator liability, we suggest that causation itself may have constitutional dimensions. This finding has far-reaching implications for mass tort litigation and could reshape how courts approach cases involving multiple actors and attenuated chains of causation. By bridging the gap between due process jurisprudence and tort law, this Article offers a new perspective on longstanding debates about liability in complex cases and provides a roadmap for courts navigating these challenging waters.

Keywords

Personal jurisdiction, Punitive Damages, Innovator Liability, Market Share liability

Publication Date

2025

Document Type

Article

Publication Information

Texas A&M Law Review (Forthcoming 2025)

Download

Share

COinS Cassandra Burke Robertson Faculty Bio