scholarly journals A Managerial Guide to Products Liability: A Primer on the Law in the United States

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 34
Author(s):  
Jr. Richard J. Hunter ◽  
Henry J. Amoroso ◽  
John H. Shannon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Managerial Decision ◽  
Products Liability ◽  
Product Manager ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Product Defect

This article provides an overview or primer on the law of products liability in the United States for use in the managerial decision-making process.  It focuses on the development of case law under the common law in determining a product defect, types of defects, theories of recovery, and the move to the adoption of the theory of strict liability in products cases.  The article is written within the context of the Restatement of the Law of Torts.  The article provides useful information to the product manager who is responsible for production decisions in a business organization. Key words: Products Liability, Product Defects, Strict Liability in Tort

scholarly journals A Managerial Guide to Products Liability: A Primer on the Law in the United States—PART II A Focus on Theories of Recovery

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 99
Author(s):  
Jr Richard J. Hunter ◽  
Henry J. Amoroso ◽  
John H. Shannon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Products Liability ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Law

 Abstract In Part II, the authors build on Part I of this study and here focus on the theories implicit in a product liability claim: negligence, fraud and misrepresentation, and warranty—with a focus on their inherent weaknesses—leading to the creation of the now preferred theory of strict liability in tort.  The context of Part II is on the common cases that provided the theoretical basis for the underlying theories, as well as to the development of strict liability. Key words: Theories of liability, negligence, warranty, fraud, strict liability

The Law of Personal Status: Wives, Paupers, and Slaves

2019 ◽  
pp. 173-212
Author(s):  
Lawrence M. Friedman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
White Men ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Poor Laws ◽  
Marriage And Divorce ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on marriage and divorce, family property, adoption, poor laws and social welfare, and slavery and African Americans in the United States. In the colonial period, the United States had no courts to handle matters of marriage and divorce. Marriage was a contract—an agreement between a man and a woman. Under the rules of the common law, the country belonged to the whites; and more specifically, it belonged to white men. Women had civil rights but no political rights. There were no formal provisions for adoption. A Massachusetts law, passed in 1851, was one of the earliest, and most significant, general adoption law. The so-called poor laws were the basic welfare laws.

Principles of Internet contracting: Illuminating the shadows

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 208-232
Author(s):  
Caterina Gardiner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Contract Formation ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Relationship

The common law that applies to Internet contract formation could be said to exist in a penumbra—a grey area of partial illumination between darkness and light—where it may be possible to lose sight of established contract law principles. Internet contracts raise difficult issues relating to their formation that challenge traditional contract doctrine. Analysis of case law from the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland illustrates that the courts have not applied contract formation doctrine in a principled or consistent way. There is a tendency for decisions to be reached for policy reasons, for example, to facilitate the development of e-commerce, or to achieve a result that is considered fair, rather than on sound principles of contract law. There may also be some uncertainty arising from the relationship between statutory consumer protection rules and common law contract formation doctrine. The enforceability of Internet contracts in the common law courts remains unpredictable. This article argues that although Internet contracting may raise distinctive contract formation issues, it is possible for the judiciary to invoke the inherent flexibility of the common law, to take into account the specific characteristics of Internet contracts, while still adhering to established contract law doctrine and maintaining a principled approach.

The Common Law Legal Tradition: First Things First

2021 ◽  
pp. 15-22
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter explains briefly the origins and development of the common law tradition in order to better understand the rise of judicial review in the seven common law countries discussed in this volume. The common law legal tradition is characterized historically, in public law, by limited, constitutional government and by forms of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation. In private law, the common law tradition is characterized by judge-made case law, which is the primary source of the law, instead of a massive code being the primary source of the law. The common law tradition is also characterized by reliance on the institution of trial by jury. Judges, rather than scholars, are the key figures who are revered in the common law legal tradition, and this is one of the key things that distinguishes the common law legal tradition from the civil law legal tradition. The common law legal tradition emphasizes judicial power, which explains why it has led to judicial review in the countries studied in this volume. It is the prevailing legal tradition in the four countries with the oldest systems of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation: the United States, Canada, Australia, and India. Thus, judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in these four countries is very much shaped by common law attitudes about the roles of judges.

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

scholarly journals Parental Criminal Responsibility for the Misconduct of Their Children: A Consideration

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Charnelle Van der Bijl
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South African ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
The Common

This contribution examines parental criminal responsibility for the delinquent acts of their children.  As South African law has been swayed by legal philosophy of Anglo-American jurisprudence, a comparative analysis is undertaken with the United States of America, where this issue has been addressed legislatively in both civil tort law and criminal law. The reasoning behind the implementation of specific legislation in the United States is that the common law principles are rooted on the principles of individualisation, which does not specifically cater for parental liability.  Parental responsibility laws have been challenged constitutionally over the years in the United States. Critics are of the view that such laws interfere with the rights of parents to raise their children and are a form of cruel punishment. Additional criticism raised is that parental responsibility laws impose strict liability on parents. Furthermore, some misgivings have been shed that many parents face challenges of being single parents or poverty, which will be exacerbated with the imposition of fines or imprisonment for the misconduct of their children. Despite these concerns and criticism, it will be shown that these laws have withstood the challenges over many decades, in the United States, in both the fields of the law of tort and criminal law. The common law of tort provides for the liability of parents for the conduct of their child. However, such conduct must be specifically attributable to a parent’s action or inaction. The purpose behind tort parental responsibility legislation focuses not only on providing monetary compensation by parents where their children are unable to do so, but also aims to encourage parents to provide better supervision of their children.  At the opposite end of the spectrum, the focus of statutory criminalisation tends to remain on criminal liability of parents for failing to protect others from their child, due to a failure in supervision and to prevent juvenile delinquency.  The South African law of delict is briefly contiguously considered in the context of parental responsibility laws. The concept of parental criminal responsibility laws under South African law is then considered and proffered as a useful mechanism to regulate misconduct of children currently falling outside the aegis of the criminal law.

scholarly journals BASIC PRINCIPLES OF JURISDICTION IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Trevor C Hartley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Products Liability ◽  
The Law

Abstract This article consists of a comparative study of the basic principles underlying the rules of jurisdiction in private international law in commercial cases in the law of the European Union, the United States and England. It considers the objectives which these rules seek to achieve (protection of the rights of the parties and respect for the interests of foreign States) and the extent to which these objectives are attained. It takes tort claims, especially in the field of products-liability, as an example and considers which system has the most exorbitant rules. It suggests explanations for the differences found.

scholarly journals The Invention of Common Law Play Right

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Litman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Public Performance ◽  
Dramatic Works ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common ◽  
Theatrical Practice

In this paper, written for Berkeley’s symposium on the 300th birthday of the Statute of Anne, I explore the history of the common law public performance right in dramatic works. Eaton Drone dubbed the dramatic public performance right “playright” in his 1879 treatise, arguing that just as “copyright” conferred a right to make and sell copies, “playright” conferred a right to perform or “play” a script. I examine case law and customary theatrical practice in England, and find no trace of a common law play right before 1833, when Parliament established a statutory public performance right for plays. Similarly, in the United States, the first claims of a common law right to control public performances appeared only after Congress enacted a statutory dramatic public performance right in 1856. Courts and lawyers developed a common law literary property right to control public performances in order to permit the proprietors of dramatic works to recover even though there were formal defects in their U.S. copyright registrations. Eaton Drone then used those cases as a basis for embroidering a full-blown common law literary property right purportedly based in natural law. Courts adopted Drone’s version of common law play right and followed it for the next thirty years. (The breadth of the common law claim, however, made little difference to actual playwrights, who were deemed to have assigned their common law rights to the producers of their plays.) This history suggests that the rights that we perceive as inherent or natural are fundamentally contingent on what rights already have names and a path to enforcement.

Choice of Law Methods in the Private International Law of Contract

1981 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 161-200
Author(s):  
Joost Blom
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Contractual Obligations

This article examines the choice of law methods developed in four legal systems for problems relating to the substantial or essential validity of contracts. The complicated questions of formation and capacity have had to be left aside. The first two parts of this article discussed the choice of law methods used by courts in France, Germany, and the United States. This concluding part deals with the law in England and the common law jurisdictions in Canada, and also, by way of epilogue, with the recently completed European Communities Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations. Finally, some general conclusions will be offered about the patterns of law that have emerged in the course of this survey.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document