Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Consumer Protection Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Discipline
Keyword
Publication Year

Articles 31 - 41 of 41

Full-Text Articles in Consumer Protection Law

Stargazing: The Future Of American Products Liability Law, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron Twerski Nov 1991

Stargazing: The Future Of American Products Liability Law, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron Twerski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Closing The American Products Liability Frontier: The Rejection Of Liability Without Defect, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron Twerski Nov 1991

Closing The American Products Liability Frontier: The Rejection Of Liability Without Defect, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron Twerski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

For over one hundred years American courts expanded the rights of plaintiffs in products liability cases. First the courts eliminated the privity requirement, next the necessity of proving fault, and finally, the necessity of proving a production defect. The next logical step in this progression would be to eliminate the need to show any type of defect at all. In this Article, Professors Henderson and Twerski assert that this step cannot and will not be taken. They explore both the possibility of across-the-board liability without defect and the more limited idea of product-category liability without defect. They describe how a …


Process Norms In Products Litigation: Liability For Allergic Reactions, James A. Henderson Jr. Jul 1990

Process Norms In Products Litigation: Liability For Allergic Reactions, James A. Henderson Jr.

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Doctrinal Collapse In Products Liability: The Empty Shell Of Failure To Warn, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron Twerski May 1990

Doctrinal Collapse In Products Liability: The Empty Shell Of Failure To Warn, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron Twerski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Liability for a manufacturer's failure to warn of product-related risks is a well-established feature of modern products liability law. Yet many serious doctrinal and conceptual problems underlie these claims. Professors Henderson and Twerski explore these problems and argue that failure-to-warn jurisprudence is confused, perhaps irreparably, and that this confusion often results in the imposition of excessive liability on manufacturers. The authors begin by exposing basic errors resulting from courts' confusion over whether to apply a strict liability or a negligence standard of care in failure-to-warn cases. Having determined that negligence is the appropriate standard, they then examine more substantial and …


Product Liability And The Passage Of Time: The Imprisonment Of Corporate Rationality, James A. Henderson Jr. Oct 1983

Product Liability And The Passage Of Time: The Imprisonment Of Corporate Rationality, James A. Henderson Jr.

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In theory, the product liability system should induce manufacturers to invest in product safety at the socially optimal level, i.e., the level at which the marginal cost of the investment equals the marginal cost of product-related accidents thereby avoided. In reality, however, this inducement may be weakened by countervailing incentives, causing manufacturers in marginal cases to forgo investment that would appear to be cost-effective. Professor Henderson argues that in these cases corporate rationality has been "imprisoned" by two "real-world" phenomena. First, a manufacturer may postpone product improvements lest they be viewed by potential claimants and juries as a confession of …


Property, E. F. Roberts Jan 1982

Property, E. F. Roberts

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Should A "Process Defense" Be Recognized In Product Design Cases?, James A. Henderson Jr. Oct 1981

Should A "Process Defense" Be Recognized In Product Design Cases?, James A. Henderson Jr.

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Professor Henderson, addressing the suggestion that the focus in product design liability cases should be on the process by which design decisions are made rather than on the reasonableness of a particular design, analyzes a proposal that manufacturers be able to present evidence of good process as a defense. Although he applauds the attempt to resolve the difficulties of deciding product design cases, he questions the soundness of the process approach. Specifically, he argues that a process defense would be unworkable because judges would be unable to tell good process from bad, and that the proposal does not address polycentricity--the …


Coping With The Time Dimension In Products Liability, James A. Henderson Jr. Jul 1981

Coping With The Time Dimension In Products Liability, James A. Henderson Jr.

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Extending The Boundaries Of Strict Products Liability: Implications Of The Theory Of The Second Best, James A. Henderson Jr. May 1980

Extending The Boundaries Of Strict Products Liability: Implications Of The Theory Of The Second Best, James A. Henderson Jr.

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Design Defect Litigation Revisited, James A. Henderson Jr. Jan 1976

Design Defect Litigation Revisited, James A. Henderson Jr.

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Judicial Review Of Manufacturers' Conscious Design Choices: The Limits Of Adjudication, James A. Henderson Jr. Dec 1973

Judicial Review Of Manufacturers' Conscious Design Choices: The Limits Of Adjudication, James A. Henderson Jr.

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.