Torts Commons^™

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: How The New York Appellate Division Slowed The Progress Of Judge Cardozo’S Effort In Macpherson V. Buick Motor Co. To End Privity’S Stranglehold Over Negligence Claims In Product Injury Cases, Jeffrey A. Van Detta

Touro Law Review

This article aims to tell the story of how the various Departments of the New York State Appellate Division sometimes helped—and just as often hindered—the development of the product injury law in the wake of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916). Hailed for loosening the privity requirement that barred persons injured by products from suing manufacturers and suppliers for negligence, MacPherson has become the stuff of legal legend. No one put it more picturesquely than Dean William L. Prosser, who in a justly famous law review article described privity as a “citadel” and presented MacPherson’s author, Judge Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, …

Toward A Framework For A Law Of Electronic Intangibles Liability, James M. Beck, Alexander M. Deguire

Marquette Law Review

Products liability law was built for a world of gears, levers, and physical failure. It now confronts a marketplace dominated by software, data, algorithms, and artificial intelligence—objects that do not break, shatter, or wear out, but nevertheless cause real and sometimes catastrophic harm. Courts and commentators increasingly respond to this tension by asking whether these digital systems are “product-like” enough to be squeezed into existing strict liability frameworks. This Article argues that this is the wrong question.

The Article traces the historical foundations of strict products liability; explains why courts have traditionally excluded intangibles from its reach; and examines recent …

Hernandez Vs. The Home Depot, Inc. (Nrap 5), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (May 01, 2025), Julia Daileda

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Nevada fails to impose strict liability for a defective or dangerous product on a trademark licensor that played no role in the product’s design or manufacture.

Proof Of Defect In A Strict Products Liability Case, Robert F. Hanson

Maine Law Review

The realization that negligence doctrines do not provide an adequate remedy for consumers injured by defective products has led many courts to adopt theories of strict liability. Justification for the strict liability doctrine rests on the judicial belief that the law should provide maximum protection for the health and safety of all consumers, and that the manufacturer is "conditionally at fault" if he does not compensate consumers injured by his defective products. Manufacturers are not held liable for all product-related harm to consumers. To recover the plaintiff must plead and prove that the product which caused the harm was defective …

New Policies Bearing On The Negligent Employer's Immunity From Loss-Sharing, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

The statutory and judicial controls on loss-sharing between third-party tortfeasor and negligent employer must yield in the face of major modern developments in tort law. The third party's tort liability burden has sharply increased both in amount and frequency. New attitudes towards loss-apportionment highlight the imbalance that results from the employer's immunity and subrogation right. Although the situation is ripe for legislative action, courts, in the absence of full-scale systemic reassessment, must attempt some balancing of the competing policy objectives. While this Comment concludes by urging the adoption of a specific remedy allowing the third party to assert the employer's …

Healthcare Ai's Unlearned Intermediaries, Charlotte A. Tschider

Faculty Publications & Other Works

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”), as the largest and one of the most influential federal agencies, plays a significant role informing downstream tort actions, such as product liability claims against medical product manufacturers.  The contours of the relationship between regulatory behavior and tort law are allocated according to congressional act and through judicial interpretation of agency action.  While artificially intelligent medical devices are technically regulated by the FDA, FDA regulatory approaches may not meaningfully reduce the probability of patient injury.  When, despite inadequate ex ante processes, injured plaintiffs cannot recover in tort due to court perceptions of regulatory …

The Decline Of The Privity Rule In The Maine Law Of Tort Products Liability: A Conceptual History, Dennis M. Patterson

Maine Law Review

No single issue has more preoccupied modern jurisprudential writers than the limitations of precedent on the lawmaking power of judges. Yet despite this singular concentration, no scholarly consensus has emerged regarding what those limitations are or what form they should take. This continuing theoretical dispute recently manifested itself in a series of decisions rendered by the Law Court. Last spring in the case of Adams v. Buffalo Forge Co., the Law Court reconsidered a significant aspect of two decisions of the previous term: Burke v. Hamilton Beach Division and Hurd v. Hurd. In Burke and Hurd the court decided that …

Tort Liability, Privacy, And Regulatory Considerations For Level 3 Autonomous Vehicles, Ryan H. Jones

Michigan Technology Law Review

Recent developments in emerging technology, such as artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous vehicles, have generated inquiries about the incorporation of these technologies into the law, as well as the philosophical and ethical questions that accompany their use. This paper considers existing legal doctrine and regulatory frameworks as applied to the niche area of Level 3 autonomous vehicles. Specifically, this paper considers tort liability in the form of negligence and products liability, privacy risks, and regulatory considerations in relation to Level 3 vehicles. Finally, societal risks and potential solutions are considered to provide insight into potential areas of additional work.

"I Am Become Death, The Destroyer Of Worlds": Applying Strict Liability To Artificial Intelligence As An Abnormally Dangerous Activity, Renee Henson

Faculty Publications

Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled tools have produced a myriad of injuries, up to and including death. This burgeoning technology has caused scholars to ask questions, such as, How do we create a legal framework for AI? Because AI creators have acknowledged that even they do not know the capacities of their technology for good or bad outcomes, this Article argues that an existing framework, strict liability, is an appropriate fit for harms arising from this new technology because a party need not prove negligence to prevail. Strict liability was uniquely developed to handle those activities that are “abnormally dangerous.” An abnormally …

Lending A Hand: The Use Of The Mississippi Products Liability Act And Mississippi's Blood Shield Statute In Palermo V. Lifelink Found., Inc., Taylor Price

MC Law Review

The experience of undergoing a surgical procedure is one of the most vulnerable positions an average individual finds themselves in during his or her lifetime. The overall risk associated with this process is even greater when the surgery involves the removal or transfer of one or more of the body's organs or tissues. The principal event that concerned Palermo v. LifeLink Found., Inc. was a botched surgical operation featuring a human tissue implant performed in March 2005 on Richard Palermo. The tissue implant surgically inserted into Palermo's knee became bacterially infected shortly after the operation and required further injury, causing …

Humans Outside The Loop, Charlotte A. Tschider

Faculty Publications & Other Works

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not all artificial. Despite the need for high-powered machines that can create complex algorithms and routinely improve them, humans are instrumental in every step used to create AI. From data selection, decisional design, training, testing, and tuning to managing AI’s development as it is used in the human world, humans exert agency and control over the choices and practices underlying AI products. AI is now ubiquitous: it is part of every sector of the economy and many people’s everyday lives. When AI development companies create unsafe products, however, we might be surprised to discover that very …

A Revisionist History Of Products Liability, Alexandra D. Lahav

Michigan Law Review

Increasingly courts, including the Supreme Court, rely on ossified versions of the common law to decide cases. This Article demonstrates the risks of this use of the common law. The main contribution of the Article is to demonstrate that the traditional narrative about early products law—that manufacturers were not liable for injuries caused by their products because the doctrine of privity granted producers immunity from suit by the ultimate consumers of their goods—is incorrect. Instead, the doctrinal rule was negligence liability for producers of injurious goods across the United States in the nineteenth century. Courts routinely ignored or rejected privity …

Differentiating Strict Products Liability’S Cost-Benefit Analysis From Negligence, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Dangerous products may give rise to colossal liability for commercial actors. Indeed, in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Johnson & Johnson v. Ingham, permitting a more than two billion dollar products liability damages award to stand. In his dissenting opinion in another recent products liability case, Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, Justice Gorsuch declared that “[t]ort law is supposed to be about aligning liability with responsibility.” However, in the products liability context, there have been ongoing debates concerning how best to set legal rules and standards on tort liability. Are general principles of …

The Unidentified Wrongdoer, Ronen Perry

Georgia Law Review

This Article addresses the untheorized and under-researched problem of strong unidentifiability in tort law, namely the victim’s occasional inability to identify the direct wrongdoer, or even an ascertainable group to which the wrongdoer belongs, and bring an action against him or her. This Article offers a systematic analysis and a general theoretical framework for the appraisal of possible solutions to strong unidentifiability problems, which undermine liability and frustrate its goals.

Part I presents the main legal models developed and used to overcome these problems in different contexts and various legal systems: adherence to direct liability with creative procedural identification tools, …

Choice Of Law And The Preponderantly Multistate Rule: The Example Of Successor Corporation Products Liability, Diana Sclar

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Most state rules of substantive law, whether legislative or judicial, ordinarily adjust rights and obligations among local parties with respect to local events. Conventional choice of law methodologies for adjudicating disputes with multistate connections all start from an explicit or implicit assumption of a choice between such locally oriented substantive rules. This article reveals, for the first time, that some state rules of substantive law ordinarily adjust rights and obligations with respect to parties and events connected to more than one state and only occasionally apply to wholly local matters. For these rules I use the term “nominally domestic rules …

From Liability Shields To Democratic Theory: What We Need From Tort Theory Now, Heidi Li Feldman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Among possible legal responses to a pandemic, quashing tort liability might seem startling. Common sense indicates that a deadly and debilitating disease would call for possible tort liability, to enable recovery for losses by those subjected to the disease because of others’ carelessness while also discouraging careless conduct that could lead to preventable cases illness in the first place. Yet, when faced with SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, the life-threatening disease caused by the virus, the first response of many American lawmakers was to enact, or attempt to enact, COVID-19 “liability shield” statutes. These laws introduced doctrine to eliminate or narrow grounds …

The New "Web-Stream" Of Commerce: Amazon And The Necessity Of Strict Products Liability For Online Marketplaces, Margaret E. Dillaway

Vanderbilt Law Review

Technology company Amazon has actively transformed into an e-commerce giant over the last two decades. Once a simple online bookstore, Amazon now boasts an ever-expanding identity as global cloud computing provider, major player in artificial intelligence, brick-and-mortar grocery store, and producer of original video content. At its roots, the company remains focused on e-commerce—its multibillion-dollar online marketplace hosts a massive digital space for commerce worldwide where customers can order “anything, with a capital A.”

Amazon derives many of its sales from third-party vendors who list products on the company’s website, Amazon.com. In this broadening chain of distribution for online retail, …

The Opioid Litigation: The Fda Is Mia, Catherine M. Sharkey

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

It is readily agreed that federal preemption of state tort law alters the balance between federal and state power. Federal preemption is a high-profile defense in almost all modern products liability cases. It is thus surprising to see how little attention has been given to federal preemption by courts and commentators in the opioid litigation. Opioid litigation provides a lens through which I explore the role of state and federal courts and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in striking the right balance of power. My purpose here is not to resolve the divide among the few courts that have …

A Scholarly Life In Vistas: Marshall Shapo's Products Liability, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

To read and reread Professor Marshall Shapo’s products liability scholarship is to learn the important lesson of how to build a body of work that continually sees the same landscape from fresh vistas. Like watching the same landscape from different angles, during different seasons, and over several years, Professor Shapo’s vistas provide us with a remarkably vivid view of the products liability landscape over the past fifty years and beyond. In doing so, he has constructed a vision of the richness and promise of products liability law while continually reminding us to be aware of the vista from which we …

The Specific Consumer Expectations Test For Product Defects, W. Kip Viscusi, Clayton J. Masterman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The consumer expectations test in products liability law holds firms liable for producing goods that are more dangerous than the reasonable consumer would anticipate. But judicial experience in the majority of states that have utilized the consumer expectations test demonstrates that it is ambiguous and impossible to apply predictably. The test is ill-suited for regulating complex products or markets with heterogeneous consumers; moreover, the test requires courts to expend significant resources to identify consumers' ex ante beliefs about product risks, even when consumers lacked tangible beliefs about products at the time of purchase. The other major test that courts apply …

A Conceptual And Comparative Analysis Of The Obligations Of Third-Party Certifiers, Jan De Bruyne

Ohio Northern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Let’S Be Reasonable: The Consumer Expectations Test Is Simply Not Viable To Determine Design Defect For Complex Autonomous Vehicle Technology, Emily Frascaroli, John Isaac Southerland, Elizabeth Davis, Woods Parker

Journal of Law and Mobility

Although highly automated vehicles (“HAVs”) have potential to reduce deaths and injuries from traffic crashes, product liability litigation for design defects in vehicles incorporating autonomous technology is inevitable. During the early stages of implementation, courts and juries will be forced to grapple with the application of traditional product liability principles to a never before experienced category of highly technical products. Recent decisions limiting the use of the consumer expectations test in cases involving complex products prompted the authors to examine more closely the history behind and the future viability of the consumer expectations test in HAV litigation.

The Deterrence Case For Comprehensive Automaker Enterprise Liability, Kyle D. Logue

Journal of Law and Mobility

This Article lays out the potential (at this point purely theoretical) deterrence benefits of replacing our current auto tort regime (including auto products liability law, driver-based negligence claims, and auto no-fault regimes) with a single, comprehensive automaker enterprise liability system. This new regime would apply not only to Level 5 vehicles, but to all automobiles made and sold to be driven on public roads. Because such a system would make automakers unconditionally responsible for the economic losses resulting from any crashes of their vehicles, it would in effect make automakers into auto insurers as well, although such a change will …

Nudges And Norms In Multidistrict Litigation: A Response To Engstrom, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

On paper, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply equally to billion-dollar opioid allegations and small-stakes claims for $75,000.01. In practice, however, judges and attorneys in high-stakes multidistrict proceedings like those over opioids have invented a smattering of procedures that you’ll never find indexed in the Federal Rules: plaintiff fact sheets, short form complaints, science days, bellwether trials, census orders, inactive dockets, and Lone Pine orders to name but a few. In a world where settlement is the prevailing currency, norms take root. But as norms blossom, the stabilizing features of the federal rules—balance, predictability, and structural protections—can wither. As …

Duty, Foreseeability, And Montemayor V. Sebright Products, Inc., Mike Steenson

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

Products Liability And The Internet Of (Insecure) Things: Should Manufacturers Be Liable For Damage Caused By Hacked Devices?, Alan Butler

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

While the application of products liability to insecure software is a frequently-discussed concept in academic literature, many commentators have been skeptical of the viability of such claims for several reasons. First, the economic loss doctrine bars recovery for productivity loss, business disruption, and other common damages caused by software defects. Second, the application of design defects principles to software is difficult given the complexity of the devices and recent tort reform trends that have limited liability. Third, the intervening cause of damage from insecure software is typically a criminal or tortious act by a third party, so principles of causation …

Gun Control Through Tort Law, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

I have been asked to respond to an article by Professor Andrew Jay McClurg that recently appeared in the Florida Law Review. In this article, the author, a longtime advocate of firearms regulation, argues that owners and commercial sellers of firearms who negligently fail to secure them against theft should be held liable when persons are killed or injured by firearms used in the commission of a crime.

In the past, believing that existing federal and state laws were inadequate to halt the spread of gun-related deaths and injuries, proponents of stricter gun control measures proposed a number of tort …

Preface To The Gateway Thread, Deborah Post

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Where's The Sense In Hill V. Gateway 2000?: Reflections On The Visible Hand Of Norm Creation, Shubha Ghosh

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cognition And Common Sense In Contract Law, Beverly Horsburgh, Andrew Cappel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.