Principles of products liability /

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Author / Creator:Krauss, Michael (Michael I.)
Imprint:St. Paul, MN : West, c2011.
Description:xiii, 292 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Language:English
Series:Concise hornbook series
Concise hornbook series.
Subject:Products liability -- United States.
Products liability -- United States -- Cases.
Products liability.
United States.
Trials, litigation, etc.
Format: Print Book
URL for this record:http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/8293501
Hidden Bibliographic Details
ISBN:9780314180391
0314180397
Notes:Includes bibliographical references and index.
Table of Contents:
  • Preface
  • C. MacPherson v. Buick
  • A. The Problem
  • B. The Supreme Court's "Solution"
  • 6. The Standards Defense (Our Product was as Safe as Our Competitors' Product)
  • Chapter 11. The Defendant's Case: Causation and Other Peoples' Behavior
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Contributory Negligence
  • 3. Comparative Negligence
  • A. General Remarks
  • B. Complicating Factor: Multiple Defendants
  • 4. Assumption of Risk
  • 3. Eliminating Privity: From Implied Warranty to Strict Liability
  • 5. "Last Clear Chance"
  • Chapter 12. The Defendant's Case: Other Affirmative Defenses
  • 1. "I Made It, But Someone Else Designed it."
  • A. Contracts Specification Defense
  • B. Government Contractor Defense
  • 2. "It Wouldn't have made a Differences if I had Warned you."
  • A. Plaintiff did not Read the (Allegedly Inadequate) Warning that was Given, and therefore would not have Read the Warning she Claims should have been given
  • B. A Third Party Warned the Victim, So the Lack of Warning on the Product was of no Consequence
  • C. A Learned Intermediary Knew of the Risk, Despite the Lack of Warning, and the Intermediary Failed to Warn the Victim; or the Intermediary Ignored the Inadequate Warning and would have Ignored an Adequate One
  • D. The Circumstances of the Injury make it Virtually Impossible that a Warning, had it been given, would have been Heeded
  • A. Implied Warranty and Tort Liability
  • 3. "We Agreed I wouldn't be Liable for this."
  • 4. "You're Paid to Face these Dangers."
  • Chapter 13. Damages
  • 1. Introduction: Additional Facts About Julian Felipe's Case
  • 2. Compensatory Damages for Personal Injury and Death
  • A. Wage Loss
  • B. Pain and Suffering
  • C. Fear of Future Injury and Medical Monitoring
  • D. Wrongful death
  • 3. Other Compensatory Damages
  • B. The Road to Strict Liability
  • A. Economic Damage to Tangible Property (Other than to the Product Itself)
  • B. "Pure" Economic Loss
  • 3. Other Compensatory Damages-Continued
  • C. Additional Compensatory Damages in Case of Alleged Fraud
  • 4. Punitive Damages
  • Part 3. Special Situations and Proposed Alternatives to Products Liability Law
  • Chapter 14. Special Types of Product Litigation: Toxic Substances and Class Actions
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Judicial Administration of Toxic Products Cases
  • 3. Causation Problems in Toxic Products Cases
  • C. How "Strict" Is Strict Liability?
  • A. Plaintiff's Behavior as a Contributing Cause to Toxic Products Liability
  • 4. Damages Issues in Toxic Products Claims
  • A. Potential but Unrealized Disease
  • B. Property Damage and Loss of Profits
  • C. Punitive Damages
  • Chapter 15. Alternative Approaches to Ensuring Product Safety
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Replacing Products Liability with Contract
  • A. Libertarian Abolition of Products Liability
  • B. Free Choice of State Law
  • Chapter 3. Threshold Issues for Modern Products Liability
  • 3. Replacing State Products Liability Law with a National Law
  • A. Federal Legislation
  • B. Uniform State Laws of Product Liability
  • C. Federal Common Law
  • 4. International Approaches to Products Liability Law
  • 5. Replacing Products Liability with Social Insurance
  • Table of Cases
  • Index
  • 1. What Is the "Sale of a Product?"
  • 2. Safety v. Insurance: Justice Traynor's Reasons for Enacting Strict Liability
  • Chapter 4. "Non-Strict" Theories of Products Liability
  • 1. Negligence
  • Introduction
  • A. Salient Characteristics of a Negligence Suit
  • 2. Tortious Misrepresentation
  • A. Types of Misrepresentation Suites
  • 3. Breach of Warranty
  • A. Express Warranty
  • B. Implied Warranty of Merchantability
  • C. Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose
  • Part 2. Analysis of Products Liability Law
  • Chapter 5. "Strict" Liability: Who May Sue Whom?
  • 1. Who is Strictly Liable?
  • Part 1. History and Basic Structure of Products Liability Law
  • A. Component Manufacturers
  • B. Downstream Sellers
  • C. Service Providers
  • D. Owners of Subsidiaries; Successor Corporations
  • E. Lessors
  • F. Franchisors and Trademark Licensors
  • G. Sellers of Used Products
  • H. Certifiers and Endorsers
  • I. Workplace Accidents and Products Liability
  • 2. Who Can Sue?
  • Chapter 1. Julian Felipe's Case
  • Chapter 6. The Plaintiff's Case: Strict Liability for Manufacturing Defects
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Negligence or Strict Liability?
  • A. Breakdowns v. Defects v. Negligence
  • B. Why Must the Defective Product Be "Unreasonably Dangerous?"
  • 3. Special Case: Food and Drink and the "Foreign-Natural" Debate
  • Chapter 7. The Plaintiff's Case: Strict Liability for Design Defects
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Tests for Design Defect
  • A. Negligence
  • Chapter 2. From Old to New: A Primer on the Rise of Products Liability
  • B. The Consumer Expectations Test
  • C. The Risk-Utility Test
  • D. Two-Pronged Standards
  • E. The Restatement (Third)'s Design Defect Test
  • 3. Proof of Design Defect
  • 4. Special Case: Automobiles
  • Chapter 8. The Plaintiff's Case: Strict Liability for Informational Defects
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Negligence or Strict Liability?
  • A. The Never-Before-Seen, Yet Conceivable Risk
  • 1. Introduction
  • B. The Warned-Of but Allegedly Underemphasized Risk
  • C. Obvious but Infinitesimal Risks
  • 3. The How, Who and When of Warnings
  • A. How
  • B. Who
  • 3. The How, Who and When of Warnings-Continued
  • C. When
  • 4. Special Case: Prescription Drugs
  • A. General Principles
  • B. The Impact of Mass Marketing of Prescription Drugs
  • 2. Seminal Early Cases
  • C. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act ("NCVIA")
  • Chapter 9. The Plaintiff's Case: Causation
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Cause in Fact (Necessary Condition)
  • A. Whodunit?
  • B. Why did it Happen?
  • C. When did the Defect get Introduced?
  • D. "Substantial Factor" Cause-in-fact
  • 3. Proximate Causation
  • A. Introduction
  • A. Winterbottom v. Wright
  • B. Product Danger X, Harm Y
  • C. Superseding ("Intervening") Causes
  • Chapter 10. The Defendant's Case: Affirmative Defenses to Defectiveness Claims
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. The Injured User (or Her Employer) Chose to Use the Product in a Dangerous Way
  • A. The Product Was Misused
  • B. The Product Was Obviously Dangerous
  • C. The Product Was Inherently Dangerous
  • D. The Product Was Altered
  • E. The Product Was "Made to Order"
  • B. Thomas v. Winchester
  • 3. Too Much Time Has Passed to Hold Defendant Liable
  • A. The Product's Useful Life had Expired
  • B. The Harm was Intergenerational (Not Caused to the User)
  • C. The Legislature has said it's too Late to Sue
  • 4. "State of the Art" Defense (The Product was as Safe as it could be)
  • A. General Comments
  • B. "State of the Art" and Informational Defects
  • C. "State of the Art" and Design Defect
  • D. "State of the Art" and Post-Sale Duties
  • 5. Regulatory Preemption Defense (The Product Was as Safe as the Government Said it had to be)