Law Commons^™

A New Legislation: Remarks On The Draft Restatement Of Products Liability, Marshall S. Shapo

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This being a law school in a university, I would like to begin my discussion of the present draft not with doctrinal analysis, but rather by attempting to frame the question from a broader set of perspectives. I shall draw on the intricate relations of law with the society it governs and the reflection of those relations in the literature that remains at the heart of great universities.

Risk-Utility Balancing In Design Defect Cases, David G. Owen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Design defectiveness is generally defined in terms of a risk-utility balance, the form of liability test adopted by the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability. However, confusion abounds in how courts formulate such balancing tests. A national survey of recent appellate court decisions reveals that courts generally define the balance in terms of the product's risks and utility, a formulation which appears to call for weighing the product's global costs against the product's global benefits. So defined, the design defect test is incorrect. What appellate courts mean for juries to decide, and what juries ordinarily do in fact decide, …

Restating The Law: The Dilemmas Of Products Liability, Robert L. Rabin

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Tracing products liability law from its origins to present day developments, Professor Rabin discusses the long-standing presence of interwoven strands of contract and tort ideology, as well as the perennial tensions between strict liability and negligence. These themes are evident both in the distinctly influential California case law and in the two Restatement efforts to systematize the doctrine that has emerged nationally. Rabin identifies the manner in which foundational ideological precepts of consumer expectations and enterprise liability have contributed to a continuously dynamic, if often unsettled, debate over the appropriate regime for resolving product injury claims.

Liability Of Suppliers Of Natural Raw Materials And The Restatement (Third) Of Torts: Products Liability- A First Step Toward Sound Public Policy, M. Stuart Madden

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

From its inception, the law governing liability for damage or injuries caused by defective products has pertained to potential liability for products that have been processed, finished, or fabricated. Naturally occurring raw materials, for the most part, have been considered beyond doctrinal concern, largely because characterizing a merchantable raw material, such as copper or pigiron, as defective is conceptually difficult. Nevertheless, certain doctrines that developed for the application of products liability to other products have gained sporadic application to naturally occurring raw materials, including the sophisticated purchaser defense, the bulk supplier defense, and the ingredient supplier defense. Madden argues that …

Inadequate Product Warnings And Causation, Mark Geistfeld

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The market failure that provides an economic justification for imposing tort liability on product sellers for design and manufacturing defects also justifies tort liability for inadequate warnings. In general, the liability standards proposed in the most recent draft of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability have the potential to remedy this market failure, although this purpose is not furthered by the Draft's requirement that plaintiffs prove that an adequate warning would have prevented the injury. Unless courts presume causation (as most currently do), sellers will not have sufficient incentive to warn about unavoidable product risks. Moreover, there is no …

Regulatory Standards And Products Liability: Striking The Right Balance Between The Two, Teresa Moran Schwartz

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Common law courts have a long tradition of borrowing legislative and regulatory standards to define standards of care under the tort system. Treating such standards as setting minimum levels of care and safety under tort law, the courts uniformly have ruled that violations of standards constitute negligence per se, while compliance is merely evidence of negligence. Although critics of the tort system have urged legislatures and courts to adopt rules giving greater weight to regulatory compliance in products liability cases, the drafters of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability have declined to do so. They have adopted instead an …

Design Defects Under The Proposed Section 2(B) Of The Restatement (Third) Of Torts: Products Liability- A Judge's View, William A. Dreier

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The proposed section 2(b) of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability has caused a great deal of controversy, and many are concerned that this section represents a radical change in the law. This Article explains that section 2(b) in fact provides a pragmatic, workable tool for judges and attorneys to explain and prove a manufacturer's liability for a defective product. It sheds much of the baggage of the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 402A and its commentaries, yet preserves the essence of the theory behind section 402A. The criticisms of the new language are adequately met in the comments, …

Timmy Tumble V. Cascade Bicycle Co.: A Hypothetical Case Under The Restatement (Third) Standard For Design Defect, Hildy Bowbeer, Todd A. Cavanaugh, Larry S. Stewart

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

These briefs were written for a hypothetical design defect case. Bowbeer and Cavanaugh argue for, and Stewart argues against, the adoption of the Restatement (Third)'s reasonable alternative design standard and the rejection of the Restatement (Second)'s consumer expectations test in the hypothetical State of Hutchins. The authors discuss the relative merits of the two tests, as well as the status to be accorded to Restatement standards in general. To do so Bowbeer, Cavanaugh, and Stewart rely upon precedent from other jurisdictions, one hypothetical Hutchins case, and various policy arguments advanced in the deliberations about adopting the new Restatement. In …

Arriving At Reasonable Alternative Design: The Reporters' Travelogue, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron D. Twerski

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Substantial commentary and controversy have been generated by the requirement in the new Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability that plaintiffs in most (but not all) cases involving claims of defective product design show that a reasonable alternative design was available and that failure to adopt the alternative rendered the defendant's design not reasonably safe. Henderson and Twerski explain the origins of that requirement in American products liability case law and show that it is not only the majority position but also comports with widely shared views regarding the proper objectives of our liability system. Although consumer expectations cannot serve …

Constructing A Roof Before The Foundation Is Prepared: The Restatement (Third) Of Torts: Products Liability, Section 2(B) Design Defect, Frank J. Vandall

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability section 2(b) is a wish list from manufacturing America. It returns products liability law to something more restrictive than negligence. What is new from the Reporters is that their proposal is written on a clean sheet of paper. Messy and awkward concepts such as precedent, policy, and case accuracy have been brushed aside for the purpose of tort reform. There has been almost no attempt to evaluate strict liability precedent or the policies underlying previous cases and the Restatement (Second) section 402A. Section 2b (the roof) has been drafted with little consideration of …

Risk-Utility Analysis In The Failure To Warn Context, Paul D. Rheingold, Susan B. Feinglass

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Elsewhere in this Symposium issue, Professor Mark Geistfeld presents an argument favoring the application of risk-utility analysis to the duty to warn doctrine encompassed by the Restatement (Third) of Torts. In addition, the comments and the reporters' notes to the Restatement (Third) suggest altering the traditional duty to warn if the warning would cause "information overload," if the danger is "open and obvious," or if the danger applies to only a small percentage of potential customers.

In response to Geistfeld and the Restatement (Third) comments and notes, Rheingold and Feinglass assert that applying a risk-utility analysis or altering the …

Defamatory Opinions And The Restatement (Second) Of Torts, George C. Christie

Michigan Law Review

This Article will focus on one important aspect of the Institute's work: the question of whether opinion, including ridicule, can be an independent basis of an action for defamation. Before undertaking that inquiry, however, some basic concepts regarding defamatory opinions must be understood. First, a statement of opinion can, of course, often be reasonably construed to imply the existence of facts that would justify the opinion. If a direct statement of those facts would be defamatory, then the statement of an opinion that implies the existence of those false facts would be defamatory and capable of supporting an action for …