March 11, 2026
Torts, Tarts, and Tortured Takes
What Is a Tort?
Pastry or lawsuit? Internet brawls over blame and who pays
TLDR: Harvard Law Review explains torts—civil wrongs—and revives the classic fight between efficiency (who can best pay) and morality (who should be blamed), using the Palsgraf train case. Commenters cracked pastry jokes, praised the prose, and sparred over whether liability should follow responsibility or deep pockets.
Harvard Law Review’s new piece asks the oldest law-school question: what even is a “tort”? In plain speak, it’s a civil wrong—someone hurt you, not criminally, but you still want them to pay. The essay pits two camps: the efficiency crowd (shift accident costs to whoever can handle it) versus the morality crowd (law should track basic right and wrong), with the legendary train-station case Palsgraf as Exhibit A. The comments section? A riot. One reader deadpanned that “tort” sounds like dessert, and the pastry meme took off, while another swooned over Cardozo’s writing, calling Palsgraf’s facts “some of the best legal writing of all time.” A practical voice cut through the theory: if someone causes harm, shouldn’t they be the ones paying—“wtf?” at the idea of billing the “best cost-bearer.” Others chimed in to explain: yes, torts are about harm in civil court, which is why law students grind on them for months. There was also a cheeky, off‑color pun that drew eye‑rolls—proof that law talk still attracts chaos. Verdict from the crowd: fascinating case, confusing philosophy, great prose, and a very real fight over blame versus burden. Read the Harvard Law Review and bring snacks.
Key Points
- •The article contrasts instrumentalist and moralist theories of tort law’s purpose and structure.
- •Instrumentalism gained strong support in twentieth-century American legal culture, while moralism remained orthodox in other common law jurisdictions.
- •Chief Judge Cardozo’s opinion in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. is presented as a central reference point for contemporary tort moralism.
- •Palsgraf’s facts involved a negligent jostle, a dropped package of explosives, an explosion, and injury to Helen Palsgraf; recovery was denied by the New York Court of Appeals majority.
- •Beyond unforeseeable injuries, Cardozo emphasized a more fundamental limitation on negligence liability tied to the foreseeability of the plaintiff.