Torts Commons^™

"Fasten Your Seat Belt, Orville!": Exploring The Relationship Between State-Of-The-Art, Technological And Commercial Feasibility, And The Restatement'S Reasonable Alternative Design Requirement, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article begins by examining some of the case law involving the state-of-the-art concept and finds that it is principally concerned with technological feasibility. It also concludes that most cases do not treat state-of-the-art as conclusive on the design defect issue; rather, they merely consider it one of several factors that the fact finder may take into account when deciding whether a product's design is defective or not. Part II is concerned with technological development. This part examines two basic patterns of technological development and provides a number of historical examples for each. The first is a linear pattern, exemplified …

When Warnings Alone Won’T Do: A Reply To Professor Phillips, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In his paper, Professor Phillips contends that questions about the adequacy of a product's design should be resolved by the use of a risk-utility test and that the existence of an adequate warning should merely be one factor for the jury to take into account. This is essentially the position espoused by the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (hereinafter Third Restatement), section 2, comment l. On the other hand, Professor PhiIlips is very critical of subsections 6(c) and 6(d). These provisions establish liability for the sellers of prescription drugs and medical devices. Section 6(c), which is concerned …

Product Category Liability: A Critical Analysis, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Professor Wertheimer has proposed that courts be allowed to hold producers strictly liable for product-related injuries, even though their products are not otherwise defective, as long as the overall risks associated with such products outweigh their benefits. However, this would subject the sellers of inherently dangerous products, such as cigarettes, to potentially devastating liability since their products cannot be made less dangerous. There are better ways to control the consumption of hazardous products if society wishes to do so.

Part I of this article discusses the scope and purpose of the defect requirement in section 402A and in the proposed …

The Case For A "Strong" Regulatory Compliance Defense, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Federal administrative agencies have established safety standards or licensing procedures for airplanes, motor vehicles, pesticides, drugs, medical devices, and a variety of other products. At the same time, product sellers are subject to tort liability even though their products comply with applicable federal safety standards. Product sellers maintain that compliance with federal safety standards ought to protect them from liability under state tort law and have relied upon several legal principles to support this claim. The first, and most successful, theory is federal preemption. Under this concept, Congress may expressly or impliedly assert the primacy of federal law under the …

Cigarette Company Liability: Preemption, Public Policy And Alternative Compensation Systems, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article speculates that some courts may have used the preemption doctrine to mask their misgivings about the ability of tort litigation to provide fair compensation to injured consumers without bankrupting the tobacco industry. Consequently, the author suggests that it may be necessary to streamline the litigation process for mass torts or perhaps even to replace it with an alternative compensation system for the purpose of adjudicating smoking-related claims.

With this in mind, Part I briefly examines the health risks of smoking and the nature of the common law duty to warn. It also reviews a number of recent cigarette …