Law Commons^™

Reconceptualizing Strict Liability In Tort: An Overview, Martin A. Kotler

Vanderbilt Law Review

In a series of books and articles, Professor Marshall Shapo has developed the idea of American tort law as a "cultural mirror"--a legal system reflecting cultural norms that serves as the "intellectual and practical foundation for society's response to injuries." The "cultural mirror" metaphor captures both the notion that there is a substantive normative basis for tort law that exists within society and the procedural notion that tort law ensures that those underlying norms are reflected in the resolution of tort disputes.

Although I believe Professor Shapo's description to be fundamentally correct, it is also incomplete, and, as a result, …

Restating Strict Liability And Nuisance, Robert E. Keeton

Vanderbilt Law Review

John Wade was a master of the craft of restating the law. The American Law Institute ("ALI") benefitted especially from his distinctive service during development of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. It is fitting that we use, as a vehicle for honoring his service, an inquiry into a segment of tort law that was first considered in the decades just after the Institute was founded and remains, even today, among the most difficult areas of law to restate. This segment of tort law concerns the general theory of strict liability and the extent that it applies to nuisance cases.

To …

Strict Liability For Defective Ideas In Publications, Andrew T. Bayman

Vanderbilt Law Review

In 1963 the Supreme Court of California revolutionized the law of torts by adopting the theory of strict liability in products liability cases.' The American Law Institute subsequently promulgated section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in 1965. Section 402A provides that the seller of a "product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous" may be held liable even though he has "exercised all possible care."' Today, nearly every state has adopted some form of section 402A.' Moreover, the list of modern products to which section 402A applies is virtually limitless. Yet, despite the unprecedented expansion of strict liability into …

Tort Law Reform: Strict Liability And The Collateral Source Rule Do Not Mix, Victor E. Schwartz

Vanderbilt Law Review

The imposition of strict liability and the simultaneous application of the collateral source rule to innocent defendants represent unfair and unsound public policy. Strict liability and the collateral source rule should not be mixed; nevertheless, our courts inadvertently blend them. A fundamental reform that would help stabilize the American tort law system is to abolish the collateral source rule in to whenever a claimant relies on a strict liability theory.The collateral source rule is appropriate only when a claimant proves that the defendant was at fault in causing an injury. There is a broad view in the United States that …

Rethinking The Policies Of Strict Products Liability, David G. Owen

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the evolution of products liability law, therefore,should be the time for doing what usually comes late in the common-law process: to develop a system of fundamental social values and goals to be protected and advanced by the law in this area. Broadly stated, an appropriate balance between individual liberty and social welfare needs to be struck within a fair and workable adjudicatory system. Once a jurisprudential basis of this type has been set, we may then begin to develop a consistent set of principles tailored to this area of the law. It will then be possible to construct one …

Unmasking The Test For Design Defect: From Negligence [To Warranty] To Strict Liability To Negligence, Sheila L. Birnbaum

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article will consider the problems engendered by imprecise judicial analysis of the notion of design defect. The central issues informing this investigation are as follows: (1) Can the notion of manufacturer fault or negligence be rationally eliminated in a design defect case? and (2) Should the term "unreasonably dangerous" be retained in the definition of defect in a design case, and if so, how should it be defined?

Products Liability-Drugs And Cosmetics, Page Keeton

Vanderbilt Law Review

Much has been written by judges and scholars about abrogation of both the requirement of privity for recovery on warranty theories and the prerequisite of a finding of negligence for recovery on a tort theory against manufacturers and other sellers of all kinds of products.' As a consequence of this abrogation, the courts in some states have completed the change-over from a fault to a strict liability theory of recovery for harm resulting from unintended and latent dangerous conditions of products. Moreover, removal of initial restrictions limiting strict liability to users and consumers is proceeding apace, and the logical extension …