Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Disentangling Immigration Policy From Tort Claims for Future Lost Wages

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

While largely unknown, the Indiana Supreme Court's 2017 opinion Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co. deserves to be canonized for closely examining - and, ultimately, rejecting - the incursion of federal immigration law and policy into state tort law. For over two decades, state and federal courts have relied on the United States Supreme Court's 2002 ruling in Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB, to deny future lost wages awards to successful tort claimants who lack documentation. Escamilla reveals the faulty logic underlying this caselaw and provides a clear and straightforward framework for future courts to employ when faced with this issue. Ultimately, Escamilla demonstrates why plaintiffs' undocumented status, alone, is insufficient to allow tortfeasors to escape paying tort victims what often amounts to substantial damages. In doing so, Escamilla fortifies the compensation and deterrence functions of tort law.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)255-281
Number of pages27
JournalJournal of Tort Law
Volume16
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2023

Keywords

  • damages
  • future lost earning capacity
  • future lost wages
  • immigrants
  • immigration
  • torts

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Disentangling Immigration Policy From Tort Claims for Future Lost Wages'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this