Law Commons^™

Products Liability Law In Minnesota: Design Defect And Failure To Warn Claims, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

The Minnesota law of products liability underwent significant changes in the 1980s. The courts filled in gaps left open since the Minnesota Supreme Court initially adopted strict liability in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co.' in 1967, but they also raised new issues and left other issues open. This Article analyzes these developments in Minnesota products liability law. The broad focus is on standards in design and warning cases. In the course of the analysis, the Article focuses on the issues that had been left unsettled in Minnesota law in those areas. The Article first addresses the elements of a strict liability …

Liability Of Parents For Conduct Of Their Child Under Section 33.01 Of The Texas Family Code: Defining The Requisite Standards Of ‘Culpability’, L. Wayne Scott

Faculty Articles

Section 33.01 of the Texas Family Code uses archaic terms and needs to be updated to eliminate confusion. This section provides an expansive statutory avenue for recovering from the parent damages previously unavailable at common law for a child's acts. However, the extent of parental liability under both of the available statutory provisions—negligence and strict liability—is disputable. While section 33.01 currently uses the terms "willful" and "malicious," these terms should be excluded in favor of "intentional" and "grossly negligent conduct."

In an age when tort liability is determined more from an insurance theory than a fault theory, section 33.01 of …

Legal Malpractice, Professional Discipline, And Representation Of The Indigent Defendant, Richard Klein

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Accountable Accountants: Is Third-Party Liability Necessary?, Victor P. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

Should accountants be liable to third parties if they conduct an audit in negligent manner? A half century ago, in Ultramares Corporation v. Touche, Niven & Co., Cardozo argued that they should not, unless their performance could be characterized as fraud. In recent years, courts in a minority of jurisdictions have concluded that Cardozo's argument is no longer compelling and they have found that "foreseeable" third parties could bring a tort action for ordinary negligence against the accountants. In addition to being subject to tort actions, accountants may also be liable under federal and state securities laws.

Suits against …