Law Commons^™

Fixing Failure To Warn, Aaron D. Twerski, James A. Henderson Jr.

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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 …

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 …

Warning Defect: Origins, Policies, And Directions, Robert E. Keeton

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

On a spectrum from the polar extreme of generality to the opposite pole of specificity, "What should warnings say?" is near the extreme in its degree of generality. A question phrased this way invites a correspondingly generic response. Such a response is not very useful to the trial judge and lawyers who regularly must fashion clear explanations on the law of warning defect for layperson juries. As used here, this question is not intended as a signal inviting just any kind of response that might be acceptable under the mores of casual conversation. It is a more serious request for …

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 …

The Duty To Warn In Products Liability: Contours And Criticism, M. Stuart Madden

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Torts-Assumption Of Risk-Flying Pucks And The Ice Hockey Spectator, James F. Gordy S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff and her husband attended an ice hockey game being sponsored by the defendant. Both testified that they knew nothing about the game. They asked for the ''best seats in the house" and were seated in the front row of an unprotected section, immediately adjacent to the ice and behind a low wooden wall. During the progress of the game, plaintiff was struck and injured by a puck driven from the ice. Defendant had furnished screened areas, which were unfilled at the time; he had prominently displayed many large placards warning of the danger of flying pucks and advising of …