Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Civil (1)
- Civil litigation (1)
- Civilian victims (1)
- Commonwealth of Kentucky (1)
- Comparative (1)
-
- Comparative negligence (1)
- Contract specification defense (1)
- Damages (1)
- Defectively designed products (1)
- Defendant (1)
- Duty to warn (1)
- Federal Tort Claims Act (1)
- Federal common law (1)
- Federal tort liability (1)
- Feres doctrine (1)
- Government contract defense (1)
- Immunity (1)
- Indivisibility (1)
- Injury (1)
- Joint and several liability (1)
- Kentucky (1)
- Liability (1)
- Liable (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Nonmilitary applications (1)
- Plaintiff (1)
- Products liability (1)
- Public works (1)
- Shaw (1)
- Strict products liability (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Torts
Surrogate Immunity: The Government Contract Defense And Products Liability, Richard C. Ausness
Surrogate Immunity: The Government Contract Defense And Products Liability, Richard C. Ausness
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
The government contract defense is an affirmative defense that shields a manufacturer from liability if the product causing injury complied strictly with design specifications set forth in a government procurement contract. The defense was first used by public works contractors to bar claims against them for damage to land and other property. However, in recent years, product manufacturers have invoked the government contract defense to avoid liability to third parties for defectively designed products supplied to the government.
Despite widespread judicial acceptance of the government contract defense in products liability litigation, a number of issues are still being hotly debated. …
Apportionment In Kentucky After Comparative Negligence, John M. Rogers
Apportionment In Kentucky After Comparative Negligence, John M. Rogers
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
Adoption of comparative negligence gives juries the task of allocating fault between a plaintiff and a defendant when both were negligent and both caused the plaintiff's injury. A logical corollary must be that juries are theoretically and practically able to make such an allocation. If so, it follows that juries are able to make such an allocation among multiple defendants, each of whom was found to be both negligent and a cause of the plaintiff's injury. The judicial adoption of comparative negligence in Kentucky therefore requires a reexamination of the rules applicable to multiple tortfeasors. Cases decided since the adoption …