Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
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, …
Warning Defect: Origins, Policies, And Directions, Robert E. Keeton
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
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 …