A straightforward reading of the title captures my central point: in the past dozen years the California Supreme Court has repealed many provisions of tort law that had been adopted by the court in earlier years. The fundamental reason for this turnabout is a change in court personnel with liberal Democrats, led by Chief Justice Rose Bird, generally replaced with moderate or conservative Republicans. I do not dwell on this readily understandable political explanation for the change in the law. My goals are first, simply to document the extent of the retreat from the court's previously pro-plaintiff inclination. Those who have not been following the court may no longer recognize the California Supreme Court they thought they once knew. 1 Second, in the process of describing this u-turn, I emphasize the extent to which the new court has rejected some basic outlooks held by the old court on what tort law of the late twentieth-century was supposed to be about. 2 Finally, I demonstrate an ironic sense in which the new court is creating some "new" torts. 3 The old court tended to eliminate law, in the * Agnes Roddy Robb Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall). I thank Gary Schwartz and Bob Rabin who provided helpful comments, and Rebecca Krause who provided helpful research assistance. 1. For a somewhat different appraisal of the work of the new court in the post-Bird era, see