scholarly journals Deconstructing Fallacies in Products Liability Law to Provide a Remedy for Economic Loss

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 387-447
Author(s):  
Alissa del Riego

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-322
Author(s):  
Nathan A. Schachtman

AbstractThe policy bases for American products liability law have developed largely through a series of state court cases that involved products sold to ordinary consumers. These cases featured significant disparities between manufacturers and injured consumers in understanding latent risks from product use, and in their ability to avoid the risks and to absorb and to distribute the costs of the risks. The policy bases that appear cogent for consumer products fail to explain or justify the imposition of liability in many industrial settings, which involve military or industrial customers that are well aware of the products’ latent risks and that have moral, common law, statutory, and regulatory duties to ensure that the industrial products are used safely.



1985 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-513
Author(s):  
Susan F. Scharf

AbstractOrphan drugs, essential for die treatment of persons widi rare diseases, generally are unprofitable for manufacturers to develop and market. While congressional and administrative efforts to promote die development of orphan drugs have met widi modest success, application of products liability doctrine to orphan drug sponsors could subvert those efforts. This Note describes die provisions of die Orphan Drug Act and analyzes products liability law with respect to orphan drug litigation. It argues that die goals of tort law support the imposition of liability for design defect, failure to warn and negligence in testing. Finally, die Note acknowledges diat liability costs create disincentives for orphan drug development and suggests mechanisms for reducing manufacturers’ liability concerns.



2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-212
Author(s):  
Alexander B. Lemann

Abstract Autonomous vehicles are widely expected to save tens of thousands of lives each year by making car crashes attributable to human error – currently the overwhelming majority of fatal crashes – a thing of the past. How the legal system should attribute responsibility for the (hopefully few) crashes autonomous vehicles cause is an open and hotly debated question. Most tort scholars approach this question by asking what liability rule is most likely to achieve the desired policy outcome: promoting the adoption of this lifesaving technology without destroying manufacturers’ incentives to optimize it. This approach has led to a wide range of proposals, many of which suggest replacing standard rules of products liability with some new system crafted specifically for autonomous vehicles and creating immunity or absolute liability or something in between. But, I argue, the relative safety of autonomous vehicles should not be relevant in determining whether and in what ways manufacturers are held liable for their crashes. The history of products liability litigation over motor vehicle design shows that the tort system has been hesitant to indulge in such comparisons, as it generally declines both to impose liability on older, more dangerous cars simply because they lack the latest safety features and to grant immunity to newer, safer cars simply because of their superior aggregate performance. These are instances in which products liability law fails to promote efficient outcomes and instead provides redress for those who have been wronged by defective products. Applying these ideas to the four fatalities that have so far been caused by autonomous vehicles suggests that just as conventional vehicles should not be considered defective in relying on a human driver, autonomous vehicles should not be immune when their defects cause injury.



1991 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-33
Author(s):  
Peter B. Maggs


1992 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela S. Helyar

Products liability law requires manufacturers to supply adequate instructions with products when consumers need them to safely and effectively use the products. This article spells out what the courts say should go into directions and warnings to make them legally adequate. In a nutshell, the courts mandate that instructions contain complete, accurate, and tested directions that consumers can readily notice and follow. Further, instructions must meet government, industry, and company standards. And, for products that can cause harm, the instructions must warn of potential hazards.



Author(s):  
William Green

Judith Weisz's story returns us to the national politics of drug risk management and finds an altered risk assessment environment for Depo-Provera, because the FDA decided to eliminate animal studies and rely solely on improved World Health Organization human clinical trial data, which paved the way for the agency to approve the drug for contraception in 1992. Marketing approval came with the condition that Upjohn conduct a post-approval study of a new risk: osteoporosis. When clinical trials confirmed this risk, the FDA revised the drug’s package insert in 2004 to include a black box warning of the risk of osteoporosis and a recommendation that the drug's use be limited to two years. In Depo-Provera's post-approval world, Anne MacMurdo's story is told by women who claimed that the drug caused their osteoporosis. Their stories, like hers, raise medical malpractice and products liability issues, and they, too, faced formidable obstacles. None of their cases, unlike hers, went to trial. Pfizer, Upjohn's corporate heir, had their cases dismissed on motions for summary judgment. Her story explains how Pfizer was able to use Depo-Provera’s package labelling, state products liability law, the learned intermediary doctrine, and expert evidence to avoid liability.



2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory C. Keating

AbstractIn the American legal academy, the prevailing wisdom about the rise of modern products liability law is framed by a debate which took place more than thirty years ago. George Priest’s brilliant 1985 paper The Invention of Enterprise Liability, asserted that modern American products liability law in its formative moment was enterprise liability incarnate, but condemned this commitment as itself a profound defect in products liability law. With rhetoric worthy of a Biblical Jeremiad, Priest argued that the “unavoidable implication of the three presuppositions of [enterprise liability] is absolute liability. The presuppositions themselves do not incorporate any conceptual limit to manufacturer liability.” Priest’s work was both immensely influential and sharply contested. Gary Schwartz, writing independently at first, argued that products liability law was really fault liability all along. According to Schwartz, the “vitality of negligence” was the driving force behind the expansion of tort liability over the course of the 20th century. Negligence conceptions lurked beneath product liability law’s surface embrace of strict liability. Or so Schwartz argued. Product defect liability was strict liability in name, but the risk-utility test of product defectiveness was in fact an aggressive application of negligence criteria.



1990 ◽  
Vol 19 (S2) ◽  
pp. 837-844 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth S. Abraham


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document