Torts Commons^™

The Truth About Torts: Rethinking Regulatory Preemption And Its Impact On Public Health, William Buzbee, William Funk, Thomas Mcgarity, Nina A. Mendelson, Sidney Shapiro, David Vladeck, Matthew Shudtz

Other Publications

As consumers, we assume that the automobiles, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other products we purchase are generally safe for their intended uses. We rely on manufacturers to design and produce safe products, and we assume that federal regulators are conscientious watchdogs of the marketplace. In most instances, our assumptions are valid and we safely go about our lives. But the regulatory system is now frayed to the point that dangerous products sometimes slip through the cracks. Vioxx, Firestone/ATX tires, and toxics-laden children’s toys have endangered and harmed millions. In these cases, society depends on the state courts as a venue …

Fda Regulatory Compliance Reconsidered, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Many observers consider the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vital for the protection of consumer health and safety. One hundred years ago, Congress established the entity that would become the FDA and authorized it to regulate foods and drugs, critical responsibilities that the agency has long discharged carefully. Throughout the past century, the FDA's regulatory power has expanded systematically, albeit gradually, while legislatures and courts in the fifty American jurisdictions broadened liability exposure for manufacturers that sold defective products that injured consumers. Observers have recently criticized the agency for overseeing pharmaceuticals too leniently, even as states increasingly narrowed manufacturers' liability …

Who Knew? Admissibility Of Subsequent Remedial Measures When Defendants Are Without Knowledge Of The Injuries, Mark G. Boyko, Ryan G. Vacca

Law Faculty Scholarship

Federal Rule of Evidence 407 prohibits the introduction of subsequent remedial measures for the purposes of demonstrating negligence, culpable conduct, or product defect. But the rule breaks down, in application and purpose, when a defendant undertakes the new safety measure after the plaintiff's injury, but before the defendant had knowledge of the loss. Such a situation is not uncommon. Would-be defendants frequently improve their products and product safety for a variety of reasons. Toxic exposure cases, where exposure often predates diagnosis of the injury by a decade or more, represent a prime example of cases where defendants are likely to …

Private Liability For Reckless Consumer Lending, John A. E. Pottow

Articles

Congress recently enacted amendments to the Bankruptcy Code that possess the overarching theme of cracking down on debtors due to the increasing rate at which individuals have been filing for bankruptcy. Taking into account the correlation between the overall rise in consumer credit card debt and the rate of individual bankruptcy filings, the author nevertheless hypothesizes that not all credit card debt is troubling. Instead, the author proposes that the catalyst driving individual bankruptcy rates higher than ever is the level of "bad credit"-or credit extended to individuals even though there is a reasonable likelihood that the individual will be …

Liability For Unreasonably And Unavoidably Unsafe Products: Does Negligence Doctrine Have A Role To Play, Joseph A. Page

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

To what extent, if any, should courts hold defendants liable for harm caused by hazards associated with the unduly and unavoidably dangerous aspects of goods they produce and market?

Where manufacturers might have eliminated unreasonable risks arising from the manufacture or design of a product, or from the information (or lack thereof) conveyed by a product's labeling, the tort system traditionally has provided injured victims with an opportunity to obtain compensation for injuries attributable to these risks. Moreover, even where risks from manufacturing or construction defects could not have been eliminated with the exercise of reasonable care, the courts have …

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 …

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

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Products Liability--Applicability Of Comparative Negligence, David A. Fischer

Faculty Publications

Products liability and comparative negligence are two very rapidly developing fields of tort law. In recent years, the vast majority of courts have adopted strict liability for harm caused by defective products. At the same time, the doctrine of comparative negligence has changed almost overnight from a doctrine that had been accepted by only a handful of jurisdictions into what is now the majority approach in this country.