Products Liability Law – Lessons from the Military and Industrial Contexts

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-322
Author(s):  
Nathan A. Schachtman
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Consumer Products ◽  
State Court ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Industrial Products ◽  
Products Liability ◽  
Product Use ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
Industrial Settings ◽  
The Military

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.

Products Liability: Consumer Protection in America

1969 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-80
Author(s):  
P. N. Legh-Jones
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Consumer Products ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Products Liability ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
Convenient Means ◽  
American Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
Law Commission

The Law Commission is currently scrutinising the legal liability of manufacturers and sellers of consumer goods under the English law of sale, and it may possibly recommend reform of the existing law to provide greater protection for consumers. A convenient means of assessing the effect and scope of such proposals will be to compare them with the doctrines of current American “products liability law.” These doctrines have subjected sellers of consumer products in America to a strict liability towards their consumers in respect of defective products. This article is intended to be a survey and analysis of the different causes of action provided by American law. It will be necessary to distinguish the different features and origins of each doctrine since the principles of products liability law have been evolved from case to case by the American state courts in a manner which calls to mind the remark of Holmes that “it is the merit of the common law that it decides the cases first and determines the principle afterwards.”

scholarly journals A Primer on the LAW in the United States: Part III Scope of Liability in Product Liability Cases

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jr. Richard J. Hunter ◽  
Henry J. Amoroso ◽  
John H. Shannon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Market Share ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Products Liability ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
Commercial Code ◽  
The Law ◽  
Used Goods

In Part III of our study, the authors describe the types of transactions that are most common in products liability cases and also delineate the parties to the transaction.  This article concludes by discussing some “special topics” in modern product liability law: enterprise liability, alternative liability, and market share liability.  The article relies on references to the Uniform Commercial Code, the Restatement of the Law of Torts, and cites the major common law cases that have impacted on these important issues. Key Words:  Products Liability; Bailments; Franchising; Used Goods; Enterprise Liability; Market Share; Alternative Liability

The Other Muslim Bans

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-38
Author(s):  
Will Smiley
Keyword(s):  
Security Policy ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
State Court ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
Muslim Majority

This Article addresses and critiques the case for state-level legislative bans on courts citing “Islamic law” or the law of Muslim-majority countries. In particular, the Article reviews the most substantive evidence adduced by the bans’ supporters, in the form of a set of state court cases published by the Center for Security Policy (CSP). Very few of these cases, in fact, show courts actually applying Islamic or foreign law, and in none of these cases would the various forms of proposed legislation have been likely to alter the result. Thus even this report does not suggest a need for the state laws purporting to ban sharīʿa. The Article thus argues that even if these bans are not unconstitutionally discriminatory in their effect, they are ineffective at achieving their claimed purpose. This Article was originally published as an Occasional Paper in the Harvard Papers in Islamic Law series in 2018.

scholarly journals Ergonomics - Future Perspectives

1976 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. J. McCormick
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Human Factors ◽  
Consumer Products ◽  
Human Factors Engineering ◽  
Future Perspectives ◽  
Work Activities ◽  
Basic Task ◽  
Basic Distinction ◽  
The Military

Ergonomics (a synonym for human factors engineering) has contributed significantly to fundamental effectiveness of people, but needs a new emphasis and wider applications in future. A basic distinction is drawn between the areas of application and the focus of ergonomists. Although applications have been relatively successful in the military and industrial fields, ergonomics should also be applied to consumer products, architecture, transportation and recreation. In future, the primary challenge will be to improve the "quality of life" by enhancing human satisfaction and allowing people to function at higher value levels. In work activities the basic task of ergonomics has been to simplify and standardise jobs, but future focus should be on enlargement and enrichment of jobs. Because of individual differences probably not all jobs could be made completely satisfactory to all workers. However, significant contributions could be made through continued efforts to “humanise” work activities.Opsomming Ergonomika ('n sinoniem vir "human factors engineering") het reeds heelwat bygedra tot die doeltreffende funksionering van die mens, maar nuwe gesigspunte en toepassingsvelde sal in die toekoms nodig wees. 'n Fundamentele onderskeid word getref tussen die gebiede van toepassing en die fokus van beoefenaars van die ergonomika. Hoewel toepassings in die militêre en industriële sfere redelik suksesvol was, behoort ergonomiese beginsels ook op verbruikerswese, argitektuur, vervoer en ontspanning toegepas te word. Die grootste uitdaging in die toekoms sal egter wees om "lewenskwaliteit" te verbeter deur tevredenheid te verhoog en mense te help om doeltreffender te leef en in die proses hoër waardevlakke te handhaaf. In werksaktiwiteite was die hoofdoel tot dusver om werk te standaardiseer en te vereenvoudig, maar dit word al hoe noodsaakliker dat poste verruim en verryk moet word. Waarskynlik sal alle poste nie vir alle bekleërs volkome bevredigend gemaak kan word nie, maar dit sou tog nuttig wees om heelwat meer aandag aan die "humanisering" van werksaktiwiteite te gee.

Allocation of Responsibility for Product Safety

1995 ◽  
Vol 39 (8) ◽  
pp. 435-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth R. Laughery ◽  
David R. Lovvoll ◽  
Michael S. Wogalter
Keyword(s):  
Significant Interaction ◽  
User Study ◽  
Consumer Products ◽  
Product Safety ◽  
The Other ◽  
Product Use ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
High Hazard ◽  
The Mean

Three studies were carried out to explore how people allocate responsibility for safety during product use. In Study 1 29 consumer products were named and subjects apportioned safety responsibility to the manufacturer, the retailer, the user, and a potentially relevant organization not in the stream of commerce (e.g., FDA, CPSC, Underwriters Laboratories). The mean percent responsibility allocated to these four alternatives was 43%, 9%, 27% and 21% respectively. A significant interaction indicated that the allocation varied across products. In Study 2 safety responsibility for the same products was allocated to the manufacturer, retailer and user, but the “outside” organization was omitted. The mean percent allocated was 51%, 20% and 30% respectively. In this study, additional questions assessed various perceptions of the products and the subject's familiarity with the products. The results indicated that responsibility allocation was a function of perception of product hazardousness; the more hazardous a product is perceived to be, the more responsibility is allocated to the user. Study 3 investigated some of the attributes of high hazard products which are associated with various allocations of product safety. For high hazard products with open and obvious risks (chain saws, cutting torches), more responsibility was allocated to consumers as opposed to manufacturers. On the other hand, for those high hazard products with “hidden” risks (pesticides, antifreeze), manufacturers were typically allocated a much higher degree of responsibility.

Orphan Drugs: The Question of Products Liability

1985 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-513
Author(s):  
Susan F. Scharf
Keyword(s):  
Drug Development ◽  
Orphan Drug ◽  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Orphan Drugs ◽  
Products Liability ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
Design Defect ◽  
Liability Costs ◽  
Orphan Drug Development

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.

10. Distributions and maintenance of capital

2019 ◽  
pp. 252-281
Author(s):  
Derek French
Keyword(s):  
General Principle ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Share Capital ◽  
Capital Transfer ◽  
The Common ◽  
A Company

This chapter examines the controls imposed on return of a company’s capital to its members, first by considering the common law general principle that return of capital to shareholders is illegal unless permitted by statute. It then discusses the problem of how to distinguish between a legal distribution of profits and an illegal return of capital; transfer of profits to a capital redemption reserve and use of profits to pay up bonus shares; company’s issuance and redemption of redeemable shares or purchase of its own shares; purchased shares as treasury shares; and how a company may reduce its issued share capital by special resolution. The chapter also looks at capitalisations and employees’ share schemes. It includes analysis of three court cases that are particularly significant to distributions and the maintenance of capital.

13. Common mistake and rectification

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet O’Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
The Core ◽  
Common Mistake ◽  
The Subject

Titles in the Core Text series take the reader straight to the heart of the subject, providing focused, concise, and reliable guides for students at all levels. This chapter examines the situation where both parties to a contract share a common mistake. It analyses several court cases indicating that certain sorts of mistake can render contracts void at the level of common law. It discusses the doctrine of mistake approach which asserts that certain sorts of common mistake inevitably render a contract void and the construction approach which argues that the effect of common mistake is ascertained by construing and interpreting the contract. This chapter also considers the scope of the equitable remedy of rectification for common and unilateral mistake.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document