Tort Law. Strict Products Liability. New Jersey Supreme Court Preserves Claims against Tobacco Companies. Dewey v. R. J. Reynolds Co., 121 N. J. 69, 577 A.2d 1239 (1990)

1991 ◽  
Vol 104 (7) ◽  
pp. 1723
1984 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Berman

AbstractIn Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a state of the art defense is unavailable in cases brought under a theory of strict liability for failure to warn. The court indicated that asbestos producers may be held liable for their products' harms even if the health hazards of asbestos were unknown and not discoverable when the products were marketed. In a subsequent case, the New Jersey court held that state of the art evidence is relevant to whether a product is defective. This Case Comment examines these different uses of knowledge evidence in the disposition of products liability cases. It contends that manufacturers should not be held liable for unknowable risks. The Comment concludes that the state of the art defense establishes a logical limit on strict liability and promotes efficient resolution of products liability claims.


1894 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 128
Author(s):  
Christopher G. Tiedeman ◽  
Wm. Draper Lewis ◽  
Wm. Struthers Ellis ◽  
W. T. Ellis

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-207
Author(s):  
John Lucas M Taylor

Abstract In XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 2832, the Court of Appeal recognised commercial surrogacy in California as a permissible head of damage in a case of negligently inflicted infertility. Due to changing public policies and judicial opinion regarding the practice, and by incorporating the three-part test of illegality developed for civil claims by the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 into tort law, the Court of Appeal held that the principle of restorative justice required a departure from the precedent established in Briody v St Helens and Knowsley AHA [2001] EWCA Civ 1010.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document