Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Risk-Utility Balancing In Design Defect Cases, David G. Owen
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, …
Timmy Tumble V. Cascade Bicycle Co.: A Hypothetical Case Under The Restatement (Third) Standard For Design Defect, Hildy Bowbeer, Todd A. Cavanaugh, Larry S. Stewart
Timmy Tumble V. Cascade Bicycle Co.: A Hypothetical Case Under The Restatement (Third) Standard For Design Defect, Hildy Bowbeer, Todd A. Cavanaugh, Larry S. Stewart
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
These briefs were written for a hypothetical design defect case. Bowbeer and Cavanaugh argue for, and Stewart argues against, the adoption of the Restatement (Third)'s reasonable alternative design standard and the rejection of the Restatement (Second)'s consumer expectations test in the hypothetical State of Hutchins. The authors discuss the relative merits of the two tests, as well as the status to be accorded to Restatement standards in general. To do so Bowbeer, Cavanaugh, and Stewart rely upon precedent from other jurisdictions, one hypothetical Hutchins case, and various policy arguments advanced in the deliberations about adopting the new Restatement. In …
Arriving At Reasonable Alternative Design: The Reporters' Travelogue, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron D. Twerski
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 …
Constructing A Roof Before The Foundation Is Prepared: The Restatement (Third) Of Torts: Products Liability, Section 2(B) Design Defect, Frank J. Vandall
Constructing A Roof Before The Foundation Is Prepared: The Restatement (Third) Of Torts: Products Liability, Section 2(B) Design Defect, Frank J. Vandall
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability section 2(b) is a wish list from manufacturing America. It returns products liability law to something more restrictive than negligence. What is new from the Reporters is that their proposal is written on a clean sheet of paper. Messy and awkward concepts such as precedent, policy, and case accuracy have been brushed aside for the purpose of tort reform. There has been almost no attempt to evaluate strict liability precedent or the policies underlying previous cases and the Restatement (Second) section 402A. Section 2b (the roof) has been drafted with little consideration of …