Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Benefits (1)
- Big tobacco (1)
- Cigarettes (1)
- Cost (1)
- Dangerous products (1)
-
- Economic efficiency (1)
- Economic forces (1)
- Economics (1)
- Hanson (1)
- Injuries (1)
- Justice (1)
- Liability (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Logue (1)
- Medical device (1)
- Patient (1)
- Policy (1)
- Political forces (1)
- Product safety (1)
- Products (1)
- Restatement (1)
- Restatement (Third) of Torts (1)
- Risk-utility (1)
- Societal costs (1)
- Strict liability (1)
- Strictly liable (1)
- Tobacco (1)
- Tobacco policymaking (1)
- Tort (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
When Warnings Alone Won’T Do: A Reply To Professor Phillips, Richard C. Ausness
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 …
Toward Justice In Tobacco Policymaking: A Critique Of Hanson And Logue And An Alternative Approach To The Costs Of Cigarettes, Richard C. Ausness, Paul A. Lebel
Toward Justice In Tobacco Policymaking: A Critique Of Hanson And Logue And An Alternative Approach To The Costs Of Cigarettes, Richard C. Ausness, Paul A. Lebel
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
Much of tobacco policymaking has been driven by economic and political forces. Professors LeBel and Ausness offer an alternative approach to tobacco policymaking that places justice concerns at the center of the analysis. Their article presents a detailed critique of a significant recent work by Professors Hanson and Logue advocating extensive tobacco industry liability on economic efficiency grounds. Asserting that a “fresh start” is necessary, LeBel and Ausness identify the interests at play in the tobacco policy arena. Instead of an ambiguous "interest balancing" approach, they construct a policy model that grounds those interests in justice considerations, demonstrating how claims …