Abstract

Since the 1970s there have been a number of efforts to legislatively change the common law of torts throughout the United States. Of course, these changes must meet any relevant constitutional requirements. Most often these requirements are found in the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the particular state or federal constitutions. Although Arizona also has witnessed efforts at tort reform, it has two additional constitutional provisions that limit the power of the legislature to make changes in tort law.

Professor Henderson explores the historical and political background leading to the election of delegates to the Arizona Constitutional Convention of 1910, the body that framed the two constitutional provisions in question, and provides an exhaustive review of the actions in the Convention itself regarding these provisions. The author concludes that the two constitutional provisions have never been given their proper interpretation. He explains why and how the framers designed these provisions so that each would apply to separate situations rather than the interpretation that has been given to them to date which results in their being redundant. The Article is a revelation as to what the framers of the Arizona Constitution had in mind regarding the relative roles of the courts and the legislature when it comes to deciding how accident victims must be compensated in Arizona.

How to Cite