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 …

Warning Defect: Origins, Policies, And Directions, Robert E. Keeton

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

On a spectrum from the polar extreme of generality to the opposite pole of specificity, "What should warnings say?" is near the extreme in its degree of generality. A question phrased this way invites a correspondingly generic response. Such a response is not very useful to the trial judge and lawyers who regularly must fashion clear explanations on the law of warning defect for layperson juries. As used here, this question is not intended as a signal inviting just any kind of response that might be acceptable under the mores of casual conversation. It is a more serious request for …

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 …

Statutory Compliance And Tort Liability: Examining The Strongest Case, Michael D. Green

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Professor Green addresses the matter of the proper balance between the tort system and regulation in the context of prescription drugs and the FDA's vigorous oversight of the industry. He articulates several reasons why a regulatory compliance defense, in which tort law would defer to FDA regulation, is quite attractive. Despite the superior expertise of the FDA in assessing the benefits and risks of a drug, a regulatory compliance defense is considerably more problematical than might appear at first glance. Ascertaining compliance with FDA requirements could be a lengthy and complicated inquiry that would either replace or supplement the issues …

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 …

Torts, Deron R. Hicks

Mercer Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bad Witches: A Cut On The Clitoris With The Instruments Of Institutional Power And Politics, Joan R. Tarpley

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

La Responsabilidad Civil Del Gestor De Bases De Datos En La Informática Jurídica, Gastón Fernández Cruz

Gastón Fernández Cruz

No abstract provided.

Formed By Thalidomide: Mass Torts As A False Cure For Toxic Exposure, Anita Bernstein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Wrongs And Common Law Principles: The Case For The Recognition Of State Constitutional Tort Actions Against State Governments, T. Hunter Jefferson

Vanderbilt Law Review

Imagine an individual whose friend has allowed him to stay in a bedroom of his trailer home. This individual brings his most treasured and personal possessions along with him. Two police officers, after receiving information of potential criminal activity from an informant, enter the trailer without a warrant. Instead of obtaining a warrant, the officers solicit the consent of a third party and ransack the bedroom-leaving it in complete disarray. They find no evidence of the alleged criminal wrongdoing and seize no property. Although the police do not arrest the individual, they have humiliated him and have invaded his privacy. …

The Burdens Of Qualified Immunity: Summary Judgment And The Role Of Facts In Constitutional Tort Law , Alan K. Chen

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Managed Care Organizations In North Carolina: Tort Liability Theories And Defenses, Jay Jyoti Chaudhuri

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Product Liability And Legal Leverage: The Perverse Effect Of Stiff Penalties, Michael S. Knoll

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Landowners Or Lifeguards? Degel V. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc. And Liability For Visitors' Injuries From Natural Bodies Of Water, Joseph Z. Lell

Washington Law Review

Under an exception to the attractive nuisance doctrine, landowners typically owe no duty to warn and protect trespassing children from the dangers inherent in ponds, streams, and other natural bodies of water located on the owners' property. In Degel v. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc., however, the Washington Supreme Court declined to extend this premises liability exception to situations where the injured visitor is an invitee of the landowner. This Note examines the natural bodies of water exception and argues that Degel's refusal to apply it in the invitee context ultimately conflicts with the court's earlier policy statement favoring …

Holsten V. Massey: The Coexistence Of The Public Duty Doctrine And The Governmental Tort Claims And Insurance Reform Act, Stephanie M. Bonnett

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Products Liability Shell Game: A Response To Victor E. Schwartz And Mark A. Behrens, Ellen Wertheimer

Ellen Wertheimer

No abstract provided.

Preemption Of State Product Liability Claims Involving Medical Devices: Premarket Approval As A Shield Against Liability, Robin Helmick Turner

Washington Law Review

Under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA), Congress established a complex scheme for regulating medical devices. Congress also included an express preemption provision in the Amendments that prohibits states from imposing different or additional requirements on devices. Much controversy has focused on whether the preemption provision operates to preempt plaintiffs' state product liability claims against medical device manufacturers. Although in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr the U.S. Supreme Court recently attempted to resolve the controversy, its ruling left open the question of whether manufacturers of devices subject to the most rigorous form of Food and Drug Administration scrutiny, known as …

Dashing Consumer Hopes: Strict Products Liability And The Demise Of The Consumer Expectations Test, Rebecca Korzec

All Faculty Scholarship

The threshold issue in American products liability litigation is whether the product was defective at the time it left the manufacturer's control. Traditionally, courts and scholars define “defect” in three functional categories: manufacturing defects, design defects and marketing defects. American products liability doctrine employs two major tests to determine whether a "defect” exists: the seller-oriented risk-utility test and the buyer-oriented consumer expectations test. The Draft of the Restatement Third of Torts: Products Liability, like some American jurisdictions, rejects the “consumer expectations” test as an independent standard in defective warning and design cases. Ironically, this limitation of the use of the …

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 …

The Commerce Clause, Federalism And Environmentalism: At Odds After Olin?, Lydia B. Hoover

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Battery And Beyond: A Tort Law Response To Environmental Racism, Kathy Seward Northern

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Recalibrating The Scales Of Justice Through National Punitive Damage Reform, Kimberly A. Pace

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.