Law Commons^™

“Danger Is My Business”: The Right To Manufacture Unsafe Products, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

While no one would dispute that safety is a desirable objective, it may not always be an absolute priority. Rather, in some cases, other societal interests such as personal autonomy, consumer choice, product cost, and performance may trump legitimate safety goals. This is reflected in some of the doctrines and defenses that have evolved to protect the producers of unsafe products against tort liability. Some of these doctrines, such as those determining liability for the producers of optional safety equipment, inherently dangerous products, products with obvious hazards, and prescription drugs and medical devices, are part of the law of products …

Loss Of Parental Consortium: Why Kentucky Should Re-Recognize The Claim Outside The Wrongful Death Context, Collin D. Schueler

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The term "consortium" has been defined as "[t]he benefits that one person . . . is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, [and] financial support." Under Kentucky law, "[e]ither a wife or husband may recover damages against a third person for loss of consortium, resulting from a negligent or wrongful act of such third person.” Furthermore, "[in] a wrongful death action in which the decedent was a minor child, the surviving parent, or parents, may recover for loss of affection and companionship that would have been derived from such child during its minority…” In Giuliani v. …

The Battle Over Implied Preemption: Products Liability And The Fda, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

A mere five years ago, the Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") began, for the first time in its 100-year history, to take the position that its prescription drug labeling regulations defeated the ability of injured plaintiffs to pursue common law tort claims based on the adequacy of the labeling. This position, radical to many and rational to others, places federal preemption of prescription drug labeling actions directly in the center of the debate over the proper roles of federal regulation and state tort laws in promoting product safety. The U.S. Supreme Court has contributed to this debate with several …

Tell Me What You Eat, And I Will Tell Whom To Sue: Big Trouble Ahead For “Big Food"?, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Overweight consumers are seeking damages from purveyors of fast food for obesity-related health problems. Plaintiffs claim that products that are high in fat, sugar, salt and cholesterol are defective. Other potential liability theories include product category liability, failure to warn, failure to disclose nutritional information, deceptive advertising, and negligent marketing. However, in order to prevail at trial, plaintiffs must overcome problems with causation, duty and proximate cause, shifting responsibility, federal preemption, comparative fault, and assumption of risk. If such litigation is successful, it may induce fast-food companies to produce healthier products. Nevertheless, this Article concludes that the problem of obesity, …

Unmasking The Presumption In Favor Of Preemption, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

It is inescapable: there is a presumption in favor of preemption. Historically, the Supreme Court has said differently-that, rather, there is a presumption against preemption. There is no such presumption any longer, if, indeed, there ever really was one. Preemption doctrine has been exceedingly puzzling in the last decade, but when one recognizes that the Court's doctrine not only favors preemption, but presumes it, preemption doctrine is not a puzzle at all.

This Article argues that the Supreme Court's recent preemption decisions compel the conclusion that the Court's preemption analysis has, in effect, created a presumption in favor of preemption, …

Mass Tort Litigation: Congress's Silent, But Deadly, Reform Effort, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article explores the ways in which The Common Sense Product Liability and Legal

Reform Act (“Act”) treats mass tort litigation issues. The Act does so both directly and indirectly. The direct methods of reform are mostly industry-specific and, thus, almost inconsequential in contrast to the indirect treatment. The indirect, almost clandestine, methods of reform are the most insidious and provide the most cause for concern as Congress once again attempts to "reform" products liability by reintroducing the Act in 1997. Given the President's early indication that a reform measure could meet with his approval, but that this one in …

The Supreme Court And Our Culture Of Irresponsibility, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article chronicles the Supreme Court's expansion of the “culture of irresponsibility,” where institutional defendants are freed from tort liability with no check on the abuse of such immunity. Professor Davis describes the Court's progression toward immunity in products liability decisions of the past decade including East River Steamship, Boyle, Cipollone, and Lohr. Noting the effect of the Court's decisions in promoting institutional irresponsibility, Professor Davis encourages the Court to use its “cultural influence” and reconsider its broad extension of immunity which has spread to situations and institutional defendants the Court never imagined.

Individual And Institutional Responsibility: A Vision For Comparative Fault In Products Liability, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Since the adoption of strict products liability over the last thirty years, two problems of scope have received the most attention: how to define product defectiveness to which the liability attaches, and how to limit the potentially limitless liability through defenses. Much like the industries of the nineteenth century, product liability defendants of the twentieth century turned to the plaintiff's conduct as a main line of defense. Blaming the victim has historically been a powerful tool for tort defendants to evade responsibility for their conduct. This Article proposes that the defenses based on victim fault that have evolved in our …

Unavoidably Unsafe Products And Strict Products Liability: What Liability Rule Should Be Applied To The Sellers Of Pharmaceutical Products?, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Injuries from adverse drug reactions have increased dramatically in recent years. This increase is largely attributable to the changing nature of pharmaceutical products. First of all, more pharmaceutical products are currently available to physicians than ever in history. Presently, there are more than ten thousand prescription drugs on the market, and each year four hundred to five hundred new ones are introduced. Second, modern drugs often are more potent than their older counterparts, thus increasing the likelihood of adverse reactions.

It should come as no surprise that this rise in the number of drug-related injuries has led to a comparable …

Retribution And Deterrence: The Role Of Punitive Damages In Products Liability Litigation, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Punitive damages constitute an award to an injured party above what is necessary to compensate for actual loss. This Article considers whether punitive damages are an effective means of promoting the goals of products liability law. Section I traces the use of punitive damages in products liability litigation from the early 1960's to the present time. Section II examines the traditional rationales for punitive damages and considers whether they are appropriate in the products liability context. Finally, Section III evaluates some of the measures that commentators have proposed to adapt more fully the concept of punitive damages to products liability …

Kentucky Law Survey: Torts, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This issue of the Survey of Kentucky tort law includes recent decisions on false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and products liability. The first case, Consolidated Sales Co. v. Malone, held that Kentucky's shoplifter detention statute authorized a personal search of suspected shoplifters by store personnel. In the second case, Eigelbach v. Watts, the Kentucky Supreme Court adhered to its longstanding rule that physical impact was essential to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Finally, in the third decision, McMichael v. American Red Cross, the Court, utilizing the Restatement's “unavoidably unsafe” rationale, refused to impose …

Kentucky Law Survey: Torts, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article provides a survey of Kentucky legal developments in the area of tort law. During the past term the Kentucky Court of Appeals was quite active in the area of torts. The Court considered cases involving battery, nuisance, products liability and negligence. The negligence decisions dealt with a defendant's standard of care, contributory negligence, and last clear chance. Four of these cases have been selected for examination in this article.

Kentucky Law Survey: Torts, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article provides a survey of Kentucky legal developments in the area of tort law. The topics covered in this discussion include: negligence per se, res ipsa loquitur, the legal duty of a land owner, parental liability for the acts of children, the last clear chance doctrine, products liability, private nuisance, and public nuisance.