Law Commons^™

Risk-Utility Balancing In Design Defect Cases, David G. Owen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Design defectiveness is generally defined in terms of a risk-utility balance, the form of liability test adopted by the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability. However, confusion abounds in how courts formulate such balancing tests. A national survey of recent appellate court decisions reveals that courts generally define the balance in terms of the product's risks and utility, a formulation which appears to call for weighing the product's global costs against the product's global benefits. So defined, the design defect test is incorrect. What appellate courts mean for juries to decide, and what juries ordinarily do in fact decide, …

Liability Of Suppliers Of Natural Raw Materials And The Restatement (Third) Of Torts: Products Liability- A First Step Toward Sound Public Policy, M. Stuart Madden

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

From its inception, the law governing liability for damage or injuries caused by defective products has pertained to potential liability for products that have been processed, finished, or fabricated. Naturally occurring raw materials, for the most part, have been considered beyond doctrinal concern, largely because characterizing a merchantable raw material, such as copper or pigiron, as defective is conceptually difficult. Nevertheless, certain doctrines that developed for the application of products liability to other products have gained sporadic application to naturally occurring raw materials, including the sophisticated purchaser defense, the bulk supplier defense, and the ingredient supplier defense. Madden argues that …

Inadequate Product Warnings And Causation, Mark Geistfeld

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The market failure that provides an economic justification for imposing tort liability on product sellers for design and manufacturing defects also justifies tort liability for inadequate warnings. In general, the liability standards proposed in the most recent draft of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability have the potential to remedy this market failure, although this purpose is not furthered by the Draft's requirement that plaintiffs prove that an adequate warning would have prevented the injury. Unless courts presume causation (as most currently do), sellers will not have sufficient incentive to warn about unavoidable product risks. Moreover, there is no …

Arriving At Reasonable Alternative Design: The Reporters' Travelogue, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron D. Twerski

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Substantial commentary and controversy have been generated by the requirement in the new Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability that plaintiffs in most (but not all) cases involving claims of defective product design show that a reasonable alternative design was available and that failure to adopt the alternative rendered the defendant's design not reasonably safe. Henderson and Twerski explain the origins of that requirement in American products liability case law and show that it is not only the majority position but also comports with widely shared views regarding the proper objectives of our liability system. Although consumer expectations cannot serve …

Statutory Compliance And Tort Liability: Examining The Strongest Case, Michael D. Green

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Professor Green addresses the matter of the proper balance between the tort system and regulation in the context of prescription drugs and the FDA's vigorous oversight of the industry. He articulates several reasons why a regulatory compliance defense, in which tort law would defer to FDA regulation, is quite attractive. Despite the superior expertise of the FDA in assessing the benefits and risks of a drug, a regulatory compliance defense is considerably more problematical than might appear at first glance. Ascertaining compliance with FDA requirements could be a lengthy and complicated inquiry that would either replace or supplement the issues …

Risk-Utility Analysis In The Failure To Warn Context, Paul D. Rheingold, Susan B. Feinglass

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Elsewhere in this Symposium issue, Professor Mark Geistfeld presents an argument favoring the application of risk-utility analysis to the duty to warn doctrine encompassed by the Restatement (Third) of Torts. In addition, the comments and the reporters' notes to the Restatement (Third) suggest altering the traditional duty to warn if the warning would cause "information overload," if the danger is "open and obvious," or if the danger applies to only a small percentage of potential customers.

In response to Geistfeld and the Restatement (Third) comments and notes, Rheingold and Feinglass assert that applying a risk-utility analysis or altering the …

Toxic Substance Contamination: The Risk-Benefit Approach To Causation Analysis, Bradford W. Kuster

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article argues that the dilemma described above requires change and proposes a new standard for causation in this type of toxic contamination case. Part I examines the difficulties posed by conventional common law relief mechanisms, and the inadequacies of existing statutory relief mechanisms. Part II scrutinizes a more lenient burden of proof standard, the risk-benefit approach, which some courts have applied when faced with situations involving scientific uncertainties. The risk-benefit approach will be applied to causation analysis in the context of damage recoveries, using the. Hemlock, Michigan, situation as a case study. Part III discusses present congressional proposals, and …