Torts Commons^™

The Politics Of The Products Liability Restatement, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron Twerski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Discussion And A Defense Of The Restatement (Third) Of Torts: Products Liability, James A. Henderson Jr.

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Liability Of The Automobile And Motorcycle Manufacturers And Their Suppliers For Defective Products In The United States Compared To Germany, Daniel Karl Robyn

LLM Theses and Essays

This thesis deals with the lability of automobile and motorcycle manufacturers, as well as their suppliers, in situations where a defective product causes a harmful event. Specifically, it compares the product liability laws of the Federal Republic of Germany to those of the United States of America. Before entering into the details of legal doctrine, the introductory note provides background information on the social and economic aspects of automobile use in those two countries. Next, Chapter I describes the liability regime governing claims against German motor vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers. Chapter II focuses on the comparable law in the …

Constructing A Roof Before The Foundation Is Prepared: The Restatement (Third) Of Torts: Products Liability, Section 2(B) Design Defect, Frank J. Vandall

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability section 2(b) is a wish list from manufacturing America. It returns products liability law to something more restrictive than negligence. What is new from the Reporters is that their proposal is written on a clean sheet of paper. Messy and awkward concepts such as precedent, policy, and case accuracy have been brushed aside for the purpose of tort reform. There has been almost no attempt to evaluate strict liability precedent or the policies underlying previous cases and the Restatement (Second) section 402A. Section 2b (the roof) has been drafted with little consideration of …

Restating The Law: The Dilemmas Of Products Liability, Robert L. Rabin

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Tracing products liability law from its origins to present day developments, Professor Rabin discusses the long-standing presence of interwoven strands of contract and tort ideology, as well as the perennial tensions between strict liability and negligence. These themes are evident both in the distinctly influential California case law and in the two Restatement efforts to systematize the doctrine that has emerged nationally. Rabin identifies the manner in which foundational ideological precepts of consumer expectations and enterprise liability have contributed to a continuously dynamic, if often unsettled, debate over the appropriate regime for resolving product injury claims.

Dashing Consumer Hopes: Strict Products Liability And The Demise Of The Consumer Expectations Test, Rebecca Korzec

All Faculty Scholarship

The threshold issue in American products liability litigation is whether the product was defective at the time it left the manufacturer's control. Traditionally, courts and scholars define “defect” in three functional categories: manufacturing defects, design defects and marketing defects. American products liability doctrine employs two major tests to determine whether a "defect” exists: the seller-oriented risk-utility test and the buyer-oriented consumer expectations test. The Draft of the Restatement Third of Torts: Products Liability, like some American jurisdictions, rejects the “consumer expectations” test as an independent standard in defective warning and design cases. Ironically, this limitation of the use of the …

Arriving At Reasonable Alternative Design: The Reporters' Travelogue, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron Twerski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Substantial commentary and controversy have been generated by the requirement in the new Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability that plaintiffs in most (but not all) cases involving claims of defective product design show that a reasonable alternative design was available and that failure to adopt the alternative rendered the defendant's design not reasonably safe. Henderson and Twerski explain the origins of that requirement and show that it is not only the majority position but also comports with widely shared views regarding the proper objectives of our liability system. Although consumer expectations cannot serve as a workable, stand-alone test for …

Individual Rationality, Hazard Warnings, And The Foundations Of Tort Law, W. Kip Viscusi

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

If all people were fully rational and cognizant of all the risks they faced, then they would always select an efficient level of safety in all their activities and other choices. Thus people would trade off the potential benefits of the risky behavior against the costs, including the risks to life and limb, and select the activity and product mix that best promoted their welfare. In such a world, there would not only be no need for hazard warnings, but there also would be no need for liability of any kind. Purchasers of hazardous products, for example, would always value …

Product Liability Law In The Federal Arena, Sherman Joyce

Seattle University Law Review

The law of product liability has been created by state judges and legislatures. Although not widely noticed, this tradition changed when Congress enacted the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. That legislation established an eighteen-year statute of repose for claims brought by non-commercial passengers injured or killed in accidents involving light aircraft. Until that time, product liability law had been exclusively a function of state law. Nevertheless, product liability reform legislation has been the subject of extensive examination and scrutiny by Members of the United States Congress for one and a half decades. This Article analyzes the constitutional underpinnings for …

Liability For Unreasonably And Unavoidably Unsafe Products: Does Negligence Doctrine Have A Role To Play, Joseph A. Page

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

To what extent, if any, should courts hold defendants liable for harm caused by hazards associated with the unduly and unavoidably dangerous aspects of goods they produce and market?

Where manufacturers might have eliminated unreasonable risks arising from the manufacture or design of a product, or from the information (or lack thereof) conveyed by a product's labeling, the tort system traditionally has provided injured victims with an opportunity to obtain compensation for injuries attributable to these risks. Moreover, even where risks from manufacturing or construction defects could not have been eliminated with the exercise of reasonable care, the courts have …

Prescription Drug Design Liability Under The Proposed Restatement (Third) Of Torts: A Reporter's Perspective, James A. Henderson Jr.

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Obligations Of Hiv-Infected Health Professionals To Inform Patients Of Their Serological Status: Evolving Theories Of Liability, 27 J. Marshall L. Rev. 317 (1994), Theodore R. Leblang

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Warranties And Remedies On Breach: Proposed Revision Of Article 2 And Related Proposals Concerning Products Liability Law, Richard E. Speidel, James J. White

Other Publications

The following materials contain (1) the warranty provisions, §§2-313 through 2-318, from the October, 1995 Draft of Revised Article 2, Sales, with selected Reporter's Notes; (2) Discussion questions on warranties; and (3) A comparison of Revised Article 2 and the ALl's Products Liability Restatement (Tent. Draft #2, March 13, 1995), with discussion problems.

Proposed Revisions Concerning Products Liability Caveat Vendor, James J. White

Other Publications

Both industrial sellers and consumer sellers should look at proposals for revision of the sections relating to warranty liability in Article 2. Particularly important are the sections on warranty, express and implied, on third-party liability, disclaimers and limitation of remedy, notice, and statute of limitations. Using current law as a baseline, revised Article 2 increases sellers' liability in at least half a dozen ways and decreases it in no significant way.

A Model Of Products Liability Reform, Anita Bernstein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Rescuing The Revolution: The Revived Case For Enterprise Liability, Steven P. Croley, Jon D. Hanson

Michigan Law Review

The article proceeds as follows. Part I defines important terms and introduces the two-by-four Products Liability Matrix by explaining the eight possible positions that might be taken with respect to the mutability and liability-standard dimensions of products liability. Part II provides a backdrop for the current products liability debate, first by setting out a capsule history of the evolution of the modem products liability regime, and then by explaining the arguments offered by the "first generation" of products liability scholars to justify expanded manufacturer liability. Part II also illustrates the utility of the Products Liability Matrix by locating many of …

Punitive Damages And Regulated Products, Teresa Moran Schwartz

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Will A New Restatement Help Settle Troubled Waters: Reflections, James A. Henderson, Jr., Aaron D. Twerski

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Punitive Damages And Regulated Products, Teresa Moran Schwartz

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Caveat Emptor: Will The A.L.I. Erode Strict Liability In The Restatement (Third) For Products Liability?, John F. Vargo

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Will A New Restatement Help Settle Troubled Waters: Reflections, James A. Henderson, Jr., Aaron D. Twerski

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Will A New Restatement Help Settle Troubled Waters: Reflections, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron Twerski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Unworkability Of Court-Made Enterprise Liability: A Reply To Geistfeld, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron Twerski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Proposed Revision Of Section 402a Of The Restatement (Second) Of Torts, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron Twerski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Reforming Products Liability, Suzanne M. Lambert

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Reforming Products Liability by W. Kip Viscusi

Stargazing: The Future Of American Products Liability Law, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron Twerski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Closing The American Products Liability Frontier: The Rejection Of Liability Without Defect, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron Twerski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

For over one hundred years American courts expanded the rights of plaintiffs in products liability cases. First the courts eliminated the privity requirement, next the necessity of proving fault, and finally, the necessity of proving a production defect. The next logical step in this progression would be to eliminate the need to show any type of defect at all. In this Article, Professors Henderson and Twerski assert that this step cannot and will not be taken. They explore both the possibility of across-the-board liability without defect and the more limited idea of product-category liability without defect. They describe how a …

Dewey V. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company: A Change In Cigarette Labels In New Jersey, Donna M. Dever

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Process Norms In Products Litigation: Liability For Allergic Reactions, James A. Henderson Jr.

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Doctrinal Collapse In Products Liability: The Empty Shell Of Failure To Warn, James A. Henderson Jr., Aaron Twerski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Liability for a manufacturer's failure to warn of product-related risks is a well-established feature of modern products liability law. Yet many serious doctrinal and conceptual problems underlie these claims. Professors Henderson and Twerski explore these problems and argue that failure-to-warn jurisprudence is confused, perhaps irreparably, and that this confusion often results in the imposition of excessive liability on manufacturers. The authors begin by exposing basic errors resulting from courts' confusion over whether to apply a strict liability or a negligence standard of care in failure-to-warn cases. Having determined that negligence is the appropriate standard, they then examine more substantial and …