Product Liability Claims

2020 ◽  
pp. 719-748
Author(s):  
John Groome ◽  
Mirjam Schorr
Author(s):  
Richard M. Ziernicki ◽  
Railsback Benjamin T.

Engineers Are Regularly Retained To Perform Investigations To Determine Whether Or Not A Product Is Defective And Liable For Injuries Sustained By An Individual Or Damages By A Commercial Entity. While Engineers Are Trained To Solve Problems Based On Physical Principles, Little Training Is Given To The Graduate Engineer To Determine Whether A Product Is Defective Or Not. Since The Majority Of Product Liability Actions Result From An Injury Sustained By An Individual Using A Product, The Engineer Is Ultimately Evaluating The Safety Of The Product. The Authors Of This Paper Will Detail A General Methodology To Investigate Product Liability Claims Through The Use Of Safety Engineering Principles.


1994 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-48
Author(s):  
Wullianallur Raghupathi ◽  
Lawrence L. Schkade ◽  
Karan Harbison-Briggs

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 556-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy D. Lytton

In recent years, a number of prominent scholars have touted the use of litigation as an effective tool for making public health policy. For example, Stephen Teret and Michael Jacobs have asserted that product liability claims against car makers have played a significant role in reducing automobile-related injuries, Peter Jacobson and Kenneth Warner have argued that litigation against cigarette manufacturers has advanced the cause of tobacco control, and Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig have suggested that lawsuits against the firearms industry can reduce gun violence. Critics have attacked this use of litigation as doing more harm than good to public health and as a misuse of the courts. This debate involves two distinct controversies: one over whether the public health benefits of litigation outweigh its costs and the other over the proper role of courts within our system of government.


1993 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wullianallur Raghupathi ◽  
Peter P. Mykytyn ◽  
Karan Harbison-Briggs

Global Jurist ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Saloni Khanderia

Abstract The blurring of international barriers has impacted the nature and complexity of tortious claims and, in particular, those concerning product liability. Products manufactured in one country are often sold or used in another State – and there is often a separation in time and space between the occurrence of the harmful behaviour the resultant injury. For this reason, countries across the globe have increasingly considered it inappropriate to subject such claims to the same mechanism to identify the governing law that applies to other tortious claims of different nature such as negligence, nuisance or defamation. The EU, the UK, Australia, Canada, and India’s BRICS partners – Russia and China – are examples of legal systems that have developed a special conflict of law rules on the applicable law in product liability claims. In contrast, the principles of Indian private international law do not contain any special rule. The applicable law is determined on the basis of a uniform principle that extends to all cross-border disputes on tort. The paper provides a critical evaluation of the mechanism to identify the applicable law in international disputes on product liability. It highlights the predicaments in extending the uniform rule to product liability claims and demonstrates how it debilitates access to justice and is not suitable for disputes that arise from accidents caused by products such as autonomous vehicles, which incorporate new technology. Consequently, the paper suggests workable solutions to develop the Indian conflict-of-law rules on the subject.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document