What is it about tort law that renders it capable of delivering public goods such as the ones just described?) Because of tort laws unique features- plaintiff-initiated complaints, the right to jury trial, litigation and adjudication turning on rules and concepts designed to help determine whether a person can be held responsible for having injured another, etc --its best justification is that, unlike all the other political and legal institutions we have for dealing with anti-social conduct and injuries (administrative regulation, criminal law, public welfare law, private insurance, bankruptcy, contract, etc. ) it provides a means by which those who have been wronged can seek redress against those who have wronged them. By contrast, the tort system is not well designed to function as a form of disaster relief for injury victims because of its high transaction costs and its tendency to produce feast-or- famine compensation. It is also not well-equipped to provide public safety regulation because of, among other things, judges' and jurors' lack of agenda control, their limited access to information, and their relative lack of expertise and accountability In this sense, I maintain, tort law is not defensible as public regulatory law In providing a negative answer to the panel question, I have already declared myself to be outside the mainstream among torts professors. Indeed, most would profess puzzlement at its having been asked in the first place. To inquire whether tort law "should be''public regulatory law supposes that it could be something else should' implies "can And very few of them believe that it can. Instead, they would say that the real issue is whether, ginen that tort law is of course regulatory law,it should be celebrated or condemned. On this question, my co-panelists split4 What is it about tort law that renders it capable of delivering public goods such as the ones just described?) Because of tort law’s unique features -- plaintiff-initiated complaints, the right to jury trial, litigation and adjudication turning on rules and concepts designed to help determine whether a person can be held responsible for having injured another, etc. -- its best justification is that, unlike all the other political and legal institutions we have for dealing with anti-social conduct and injuries (administrative regulation, criminal law, public welfare law, private insurance, bankruptcy, contract, etc.), it provides a means by which those who have been wronged can seek redress against those who have wronged them. By contrast, the tort system is not well designed to function as a form of disaster relief for injury victims because of its high transaction costs and its tendency to produce feast-or￾famine compensation. It is also not well-equipped to provide public safety regulation because of, among other things, judges’ and jurors’ lack of agenda control, their limited access to information, and their relative lack of expertise and accountability. In this sense, I maintain, tort law is not defensible as public regulatory law. In providing a negative answer to the panel question, I have already declared myself to be outside the mainstream among torts professors. Indeed, most would profess puzzlement at its having been asked in the first place. To inquire whether tort law “should be” public regulatory law supposes that it could be something else -- “should” implies “can.” And very few of them believe that it can. Instead, they would say that the real issue is whether, given that tort law is of course regulatory law, it should be celebrated or condemned. On this question, my co-panelists split