Digital Commons Network^™

"Fasten Your Seat Belt, Orville!": Exploring The Relationship Between State-Of-The-Art, Technological And Commercial Feasibility, And The Restatement'S Reasonable Alternative Design Requirement, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article begins by examining some of the case law involving the state-of-the-art concept and finds that it is principally concerned with technological feasibility. It also concludes that most cases do not treat state-of-the-art as conclusive on the design defect issue; rather, they merely consider it one of several factors that the fact finder may take into account when deciding whether a product's design is defective or not. Part II is concerned with technological development. This part examines two basic patterns of technological development and provides a number of historical examples for each. The first is a linear pattern, exemplified …

Providing A Safe Harbor For Those Who Play By The Rules: The Case For A Strong Regulatory Compliance Defense, Richard C. Ausness, H. Lee Barfield, David A. King, Joshua R. Denton, Stephen J. Jasper

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

On September 25, 2003, a fire broke out at the National Health Care (NHC) nursing home facility in Nashville, Tennessee, causing sixteen deaths and a number of injuries from smoke inhalation. Thirty-two victims subsequently filed suit against the nursing home, alleging that NHC was negligent for failing to install sprinklers in its facility. This claim was made notwithstanding the fact that applicable federal, state, and local safety regulations did not require the installation of sprinklers in this particular type of building, and notwithstanding that the NHC facility had been inspected by state fire inspectors just months before the fire and …

When Warnings Alone Won’T Do: A Reply To Professor Phillips, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In his paper, Professor Phillips contends that questions about the adequacy of a product's design should be resolved by the use of a risk-utility test and that the existence of an adequate warning should merely be one factor for the jury to take into account. This is essentially the position espoused by the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (hereinafter Third Restatement), section 2, comment l. On the other hand, Professor PhiIlips is very critical of subsections 6(c) and 6(d). These provisions establish liability for the sellers of prescription drugs and medical devices. Section 6(c), which is concerned …

Product Category Liability: A Critical Analysis, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Professor Wertheimer has proposed that courts be allowed to hold producers strictly liable for product-related injuries, even though their products are not otherwise defective, as long as the overall risks associated with such products outweigh their benefits. However, this would subject the sellers of inherently dangerous products, such as cigarettes, to potentially devastating liability since their products cannot be made less dangerous. There are better ways to control the consumption of hazardous products if society wishes to do so.

Part I of this article discusses the scope and purpose of the defect requirement in section 402A and in the proposed …