Talk:Product liability

added basic rationale of strict liability. tried to balance the argument, which was one-sided in favor of negligence. there is a sensible reason almost all jurisdictions have moved to strict liability. --Rmalloy 23:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimenez is about extension of strict liability to fixtures

Some anonymous editor (probably not a lawyer) tried to change the summary of Jimenez to refer to personal property instead of real property. That is incorrect. Jimenez did extend strict liability to products installed as fixtures on real property. --Coolcaesar 17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess

The biggest problem is that design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn are discussed under negligence. The Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability, does mention those categories, but focuses on them separately and apart from the labels of strict liability and negligence. The confusing relationship between strict liability/negligence (that is, the underlying traditional causes of action) versus the more recent development of these three types of product defects as developed in the case law (particularly in California) needs to be better explained in this article. I would do it myself but I'm way too busy with depositions and motion practice. I'm sure there must be some other Wikipedia editor out there in law school who can get a hold of the Restatement Third and straighten this article out! --Coolcaesar 23:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

History section is weak

Why is there no mention of Cardozo and his contributions to product liability theory (such as in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.)? This article could use some revision in that regard. --Eastlaw (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for and debate over strict liability - weasel words

Starting to think about a cleanup of this article. What is the problem with this section? It could do with a copyedit but it looks balanced to me. Couldn't see any weasel words. Can somebody be more explicit? Cutler (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I think the best structure for a cleaned up article would be:

• Head para
• Theory (Taschner is a good ref here [1])
  • Allocation of costs
  • Strict v. fault-based
  • Development risks defence/ State of the art defense
• History
  • Winterbottom v. Wright
  • MacPherson v. Buick
  • Donaghue v. Stevenson
  • Grant v. Australian Knitting
  • US developments up to 2nd Restatement of Torts
  • Pearson commission
  • EU Directive 85/374/EC
  • Further US developments
  • Sytems derived from US and EU: Switzerland, Australia, Japan (hemispheric bias solved!)
  • ...
• US law
• EU law
• Australian law
• Japanese law
• References
• Bibliography

— er that's it. Cutler (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Cutler I'm with you with the proposed structure I think it goes to the point and address the issue of the biasing. Others can start adding special considerations of each country, but mainly it sorts out the huge mess :). Marianolu (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would add some discussion about the academic controversy over the area. Philipson/Sun/Goldman argue that current product liability law is inefficient and raises prices without improving safety. THF (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Insurance section smells fishy

I know that additional insured clauses are a common provision in construction contracts between general contractors and subs, but I've never heard of a manufacturer or distributor putting downstream distributors and retailers as additional insureds on its CGL. I've seen lots of reported cases where insurers of construction contractors fight over which insurer has which contractor as an additional insured, but I've never seen insurers of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers doing the same thing. If someone doesn't provide a source for that, I'm deleting the whole section soon. It smells suspiciously of original research.--Coolcaesar (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no one's defending that garbage, out the door it goes. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Insurance and Indemnification section

My practice does not involve insurance law but I am reasonably familiar with it. I know that some of the things in this section are correct. My knowledge simply doesn't extend to the rest of it but the author certainly appears to know what s/he is talking about. I was led here by this article Additional insured which I found to be informative. It was written by the same author.

This most certainly isn't "laughably incorrect garbage", although I agree that it is unsourced. That's what those "citation needed tags" are for. I'll try to find out how to put one in to save you the trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustPassingThrough123 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I just ran the search on Google Books because that section still smells fishy. It's also not written very well and appears to have been drafted by either a nonlawyer, a paralegal, or a lawyer in one of those jurisdictions where anyone who can sign his name can pass the bar exam. As I suspected, there are LOTS of sources talking about the obligation of a subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor, but nothing talking about an upstream manufacturer's obligation to indemnify downstream distributors and retailers. I'm pulling that section until someone can provide a citation to a reliable source. See core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)