Summary, etc |
Contents<br/>Machine generated contents note: ch. One Product Distributor's Strict Liability for Defect-Caused Harm<br/>A.The Role of Negligence in the Formative Period<br/>1.Negligence from First-Year Torts<br/>2.The Fall of the Privity Rule<br/>3.The Rise of Res Ipsa Loquitur<br/>Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.<br/>B.The Modern Rule of Strict Liability in Tort<br/>1.Implied Warranty as a Bridge to Strict Liability in the 1950s and Early 1960s<br/>2.Adoption of [§]402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in 1965<br/>3.Codification of the Strict Liability Rule in the Restatement (Third) of Torts in 1998<br/>Problem One<br/>4.Policy Objectives Supporting Strict Liability in Tort<br/>Problem Two<br/>C.Defect as the Linchpin of Strict Products Liability<br/>1.What Makes a Product Defective? (The Conceptual Dimension)<br/>Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp.<br/>2.How Does the Plaintiff Prove Original Defect? (The Practical Dimension)<br/>Speller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.<br/>Problem Three<br/>Contents note continued: D.The Boundaries of Strict Products Liability<br/>1.What Are (and What Are Not) Products?<br/>Winter v. G.P. Putnam's Sons<br/>Problem Four<br/>Postscript on Blood and Other Human Tissue<br/>2.Which Activities Constitute "Selling or Otherwise Distributing" in a Commercial Context?<br/>Magrine v. Krasnica<br/>3.When Is a Product Seller or Other Distributor "In the Business of Selling or Distributing"?<br/>E.Allocating Responsibility Inside and Outside the Commercial Chain of Distribution<br/>1.Allocating Responsibility Between Product Distributors and Other Defendants and Among Members of the Distributive Chain<br/>a.Joint and Several Liability<br/>b.Letting Retailers and Wholesalers Out of the Litigation<br/>Problem Five<br/>c.Contribution Among Members of the Distributive Chain<br/>d.Indemnity Rights Up the Distributive Chain<br/>e.Settlement and Release Between the Plaintiff and Members of the Distributive Chain<br/>Contents note continued: F.Assigning Responsibility Collectively to the Distributive Chain<br/>G.Assigning Responsibility for Product-Related Workplace Accidents<br/>1.Direct Attack by the Employee Against the Employer<br/>Laidlow v. Hariton Machinery Co.<br/>2.Allocating Responsibility Between the Worker Compensation System and the Products Liability System<br/>Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp.<br/>ch. Two Causation<br/>A.Did the Product Actually Cause the Plaintiff's Harm?<br/>1.But-For Causation in General<br/>2.Special Problems of Proof: Reliance on Experts<br/>Rider v. Sandoz Pharmaceutical Corp.<br/>Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc.<br/>Problem Six<br/>B.Did the Defendant Supply the Product?<br/>Problem Seven<br/>C.Did the Defect in the Defendant's Product Contribute to Harming the Plaintiff?<br/>1.The Traditional Burden In Proving Causation<br/>Midwestern V.W. Corp. v. Ringley<br/>Problem Eight<br/>2.Enhanced Injury<br/>3.Loss-of-a-Chance<br/>Problem Nine<br/>Contents note continued: D.Did the Defective Product Proximately Cause the Plaintiff's Harm?<br/>Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton<br/>Problem Ten<br/>Problem Eleven<br/>ch. Three Affirmative Defenses<br/>A.Conduct-Based Defenses: Background Principles<br/>1.Introduction<br/>2.Contributory Negligence<br/>3.Comparative Fault<br/>B.Application of Comparative Fault in Products Liability<br/>1.Can Fault and Defect Be Compared?<br/>a.Manufacturing Defects: Comparing Apples and Oranges<br/>b.Generic Defects: Comparing Fault Under Risk-Utility Balancing<br/>c.Should Fault and Defect Be Compared?<br/>Webb v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.<br/>Social Control of Product-Related Accidents: The Seat Belt Defense and Governmental Control of Drivers' Behavior<br/>d.The Crashworthiness Imbroglio: Should Fault Be Compared with Enhanced Injury<br/>Wolf v. Toyota Motor Corporation<br/>e.Should Plaintiffs Fault Be Compared with Defendant's Breach of Express or Implied Warranty?<br/>Contents note continued: f.No Duty/Primary Assumption of Risk: Reintroducing Plaintiff's Conduct as a Total Bar<br/>Green v. Allendale Planting Co. & the KBH Corp.<br/>Problem Twelve<br/>g.Is Comparative Fault a Defense that Only Defendants Can Raise, or Can Plaintiffs Use It as an Affirmative Gambit?<br/>C.Non-Conduct-Based Defenses<br/>1.Time-Based Defenses<br/>a.Open-Ended Time Bars<br/>b.Fixed-Period Time Bars<br/>Problem Thirteen<br/>Note: Constitutionality of Statutes of Repose<br/>ch. Four Liability for Defective Design<br/>A.Preliminary Puzzlements<br/>1.Do We Need Governmental Review of Product Designs? Why Not Leave Responsibility for Design Safety Entirely to the Market?<br/>2.If We Need Governmental Review of Product Designs, Why Not Rely Exclusively on Nonjudicial Regulatory Agencies? Why Rely on Tort?<br/>3.If We Must Rely on the Tort System, Why Limit Liability to Defect-Caused Harm? Why Not Adopt Broad-Based Enterprise Liability?<br/>Contents note continued: B.When the Fact of the Accident Speaks For Itself-Inferring Defect From Product Malfunction<br/>C.Risk-Utility: The Reasonable Alternative Design Standard For Determining Design Defect<br/>1.Defining the Standard for Determining Design Defect<br/>Smith v. Louisville Ladder Co.<br/>Bourne v. Marty Gilman, Inc.<br/>Problem Fourteen<br/>Problem Fifteen<br/>2.The Time Dimension: Post-Distribution Increases in Knowledge of Risks<br/>3.The Time Dimension: Post-Distribution Improvements in Risk- Avoidance Techniques<br/>a.State of the Art<br/>Boatland of Houston, Inc. v. Bailey<br/>b.Admissibility of Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measures<br/>4.How Do Negligence and Strict Liability Theories Differ? Should Design Claims Be Submitted to Juries on Both Theories?<br/>Lecy v. Bayliner Marine Corp.<br/>5.Can a Warning Substitute for a Reasonable Alternative Design?<br/>Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez<br/>D.Risk-Utility: Product Category Liability<br/>Contents note continued: James A. Henderson, Jr. & Aaron D. Twerski, Closing the American Products Liability Frontier: The Rejection of Liability Without Defect<br/>Ellen Wertheimer, The Smoke Gets in Their Eyes: Product Category Liability and Alternative Feasible Designs in the Third Restatement<br/>Parish v. Jumpking, Inc.<br/>Dawson v. Chrysler Corp.<br/>Note: Crashworthiness Litigation<br/>E.The Consumer Expectations Standard For Determining Design Defect<br/>1.Consumer Expectations as a Sword to Impose Liability<br/>Heaton v. Ford Motor Co.<br/>Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.<br/>Problem Sixteen<br/>The Uniform Commercial Code and the Consumer Expectations Test<br/>2.Consumer Expectations as a Shield Against Liability<br/>F.The Two-Prong Standard For Determining Design Defect<br/>Soule v. General Motors Corp.<br/>Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co.<br/>Problem Seventeen<br/>G.Special Duty Problems in Design Litigation<br/>Contents note continued: 1.Whether and to What Extent Should Courts Explicitly Defer to Markets on a Case-by-Case Basis?<br/>Linegar v. Armour of America, Inc.<br/>Scarangella v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc.<br/>2.Whether and to What Extent Should Courts Defer to Safety Statutes or Administrative Regulations?<br/>3.Beyond the Pale: High Profile No-Duty Cases<br/>Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.<br/>In re September 11 Litigation<br/>H.Special Problems of Misuse, Alteration, and Modification<br/>I.Federal Preemption of Design Defect Claims<br/>Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett<br/>ch. Five Liability for Failure to Warn<br/>A.The Basic Duty to Warn at Time of Sale<br/>1.The General Rule Governing Failure to Warn<br/>Olson v. Prosoco, Inc.<br/>2.No Duty to Warn of Unknowable Risks<br/>Liability Insurance and Long-Tail, Unknowable Risks<br/>3.No Duty to Warn of Obvious or Generally Known Risks<br/>Jamieson v. Woodward & Lothrop<br/>Greene v. A.P. Products, Ltd.<br/>Problem Eighteen<br/>Contents note continued: To Speak or Not To Speak; "Digging Your Own Grave With the Best of Intentions"<br/>Problem Nineteen<br/>4.Informed-Choice Warnings<br/>Problem Twenty<br/>Liriano v. Hobart Corp.<br/>5.Who Must Warn Whom?<br/>B.The Sufficiency of the Defendant's Warning<br/>Moore v. Ford Motor Company<br/>Problem Twenty-One<br/>James A. Henderson, Jr. & Aaron D. Twerski, Doctrinal Collapse in Products Liability: The Empty Shell of Failure to Warn<br/>Broussard v. Continental Oil Co.<br/>C.Post-Sale Warnings<br/>Lovick v. Wil-Rich<br/>D.Special Problems With Causation<br/>1.Would the Product User/Consumer Have Heeded an Adequate Warning?<br/>2.If the User/Consumer Had Heeded the Warning, Would the Plaintiff's Harm Have Been Reduced/Avoided?<br/>3.What If the Defendant's Failure to Warn Causes Plaintiff to Suffer Harm from Another Product?<br/>Powell v. Standard Brands Paint Co.<br/>4.Did the Plaintiff Suffer the Sort of Harm that an Adequate Warning Would Have Aimed at Preventing?<br/>Contents note continued: Problem Twenty-Two<br/>E.Federal Preemption of Product Warning Claims<br/>Note: FDA-Approved Warnings<br/>Wyeth v. Levine<br/>ch. Six Express Warranty and Misrepresentation<br/>A.Express Warranty<br/>1.What Is Warranted<br/>Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.<br/>Problem Twenty-Three<br/>2.Basis of the Bargain-The Reliance Controversy<br/>Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.<br/>Note: The Implied Warranty of Fitness For Particular Purpose<br/>B.Misrepresentation<br/>Crocker v. Winthrop Laboratories<br/>C.Other Marketing-Based Approaches To Liability<br/>Problem Twenty-Four<br/>ch. Seven Special Products and Product Markets<br/>A.Component Parts and Raw Materials<br/>Zaza v. Marquess & Nell, Inc.<br/>B.Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices<br/>1.Liability Based on Failure to Warn<br/>a.Warning the Health Care Provider<br/>Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Yarrow<br/>b.Warning the Patient Directly<br/>Perez v. Wyeth Laboratories Inc.<br/>2.Liability for Defective Drug Designs<br/>Contents note continued: Brown v. Superior Court (Abbott Laboratories)<br/>3.Pharmacists' Liability for Prescription Products<br/>C.Used Products<br/>1.The Tort Rules Governing Liability<br/>Crandell v. Larkin and Jones Appliance Co.<br/>Note: Tort and Contract-Something Old, Something New<br/>2.The Role of Disclaimers in Determining Liability for Used Products<br/>Problem Twenty-Five<br/>D.Food, Nonprescription Drugs, and Cosmetics<br/>1.Food Products<br/>2.Nonprescription Drugs and Cosmetics<br/>ch. Eight Special Elements of the Products Liability Plaintiff's Recovery<br/>A.Recovery For Pure Emotional Upset<br/>Kennedy v. McKesson Co.<br/>B.Recovery For Pure Economic Loss<br/>East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc.<br/>Problem Twenty-Six<br/>Charles W. Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics<br/>C.Recovery in Toxic Torts Litigation: Special Problems<br/>1.Increased Risk of Future Injury<br/>Mauro v. Raymark Industries, Inc.<br/>2.Recovery for Emotional Upset<br/>Contents note continued: Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co. v. Buckley<br/>3.Medical Monitoring<br/>Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.<br/>D.Recovery of Punitive Damages<br/>1.Legal Standards and Limits Under State Law<br/>2.Federal Constitutional Control of Punitive Damages<br/>State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell<br/>Philip Morris USA v. Williams<br/>ch. Nine Products Liability in a Global Context<br/>A.Products Liability Law Beyond the United States<br/>Mathias Reimann, Liability for Defective Products at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: Emergence of a Worldwide Standard?<br/>J.Mark, Ramseyer, Liability for Defective Products: Comparative Hypotheses and Evidence from Japan<br/>B.Policy Challenges Posed By a Globally Integrated Product Marketplace<br/>1.The Impact of Products Liability Law on the Competiveness of Firms<br/>2.Effects of Products Liability Law on Product Innovation<br/>3.Does the Global Marketplace Need a Global Regulator?<br/>Problem Twenty-Seven<br/>Contents note continued: Problem Twenty-Eight. |