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

Torts Commons

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

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Torts

Products Liability Harmonization: A Uniform Standard, Rebecca Korzec Jan 2003

Products Liability Harmonization: A Uniform Standard, Rebecca Korzec

All Faculty Scholarship

Among industrialized nations, the United States is unique in addressing tort law at the state rather than the national level. For example, Australia and Canada, which share a common-law heritage with the United States, have federal tort systems. The United States approach may be appropriate in some tort settings, such as in the premises liability or motor vehicle accident context (not involving a claim of products liability), where the state rule’s impact remains within that state’s geographical boundaries. Unlike the simple 'fender-bender', which occurs within the borders of one state, the typical product is manufactured and marketed nationally or internationally. …


Dashing Consumer Hopes: Strict Products Liability And The Demise Of The Consumer Expectations Test, Rebecca Korzec Jul 1997

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 …