Because Knetbooks knows college students. Our rental program is designed to save you time and money. Whether you need a textbook for a semester, quarter or even a summer session, we have an option for you. Simply select a rental period, enter your information and your book will be on its way!
| Preface | p. v |
| Introduction | p. 1 |
| History and Basic Structure of Products Liability Law | |
| Julian Felipe's Case | p. 10 |
| From Old to New: A Primer on the Rise of Products Liability | p. 12 |
| Introduction | p. 12 |
| Seminal Early Cases | p. 18 |
| Winterbottom v. Wright | p. 18 |
| Thomas v. Winchester | p. 19 |
| MacPherson v. Buick | p.... MORE |
| Eliminating Privity: From Implied Warranty to Strict Liability | p. 21 |
| Implied Warranty and Tort Liability | p. 21 |
| The Road to Strict Liability | p. 23 |
| How "Strict" Is Strict Liability? | p. 26 |
| Threshold Issues for Modern Products Liability | p. 30 |
| What Is the "Sale of a Product?" | p. 30 |
| Safety v. Insurance: Justice Traynor's Reasons for Enacting Strict Liability | p. 34 |
| "Non-Strict" Theories of Products Liability | p. 40 |
| Negligence | p. 40 |
| Salient Characteristics of a Negligence Suit | p. 42 |
| Tortious Misrepresentation | p. 43 |
| Types of Misrepresentation Suites | p. 43 |
| Breach of Warranty | p. 46 |
| Express Warranty | p. 46 |
| Implied Warranty of Merchantability | p. 48 |
| Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose | p. 50 |
| Analysis of Products Liability Law | |
| "Strict" Liability: Who May Sue Whom? | p. 54 |
| Who is Strictly Liable? | p. 54 |
| Component Manufacturers | p. 55 |
| Downstream Sellers | p. 56 |
| Service Providers | p. 57 |
| Owners of Subsidiaries; Successor Corporations | p. 58 |
| Lessors | p. 60 |
| Franchisors and Trademark Licensors | p. 61 |
| Sellers of Used Products | p. 62 |
| Certifiers and Endorsers | p. 64 |
| Workplace Accidents and Products Liability | p. 65 |
| Who Can Sue? | p. 70 |
| The Plaintiff's Case: Strict Liability for Manufacturing Defects | p. 72 |
| Introduction | p. 72 |
| Negligence or Strict Liability? | p. 73 |
| Breakdowns v. Defects v. Negligence | p. 73 |
| Why Must the Defective Product Be "Unreasonably Dangerous?" | p. 76 |
| Special Case: Food and Drink and the "Foreign-Natural" Debate | p. 77 |
| The Plaintiff's Case: Strict Liability for Design Defects | p. 81 |
| Introduction | p. 81 |
| Tests for Design Defect | p. 83 |
| Negligence | p. 83 |
| The Consumer Expectations Test | p. 84 |
| The Risk-Utility Test | p. 87 |
| Two-Pronged Standards | p. 90 |
| The Restatement (Third)'s Design Defect Test | p. 91 |
| Proof of Design Defect | p. 92 |
| Special Case: Automobiles | p. 95 |
| The Plaintiff's Case: Strict Liability for Informational Defects | p. 104 |
| Introduction | p. 104 |
| Negligence or Strict Liability? | p. 107 |
| The Never-Before-Seen, Yet Conceivable Risk | p. 108 |
| The Warned-Of but Allegedly Underemphasized Risk | p. 110 |
| Obvious but Infinitesimal Risks | p. 113 |
| The How, Who and When of Warnings | p. 117 |
| How | p. 117 |
| Who | p. 118 |
| The How, Who and When of Warnings-Continued | |
| When | p. 120 |
| Special Case: Prescription Drugs | p. 121 |
| General Principles | p. 121 |
| The Impact of Mass Marketing of Prescription Drugs | p. 125 |
| National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act ("NCVIA") | p. 126 |
| The Plaintiff's Case: Causation | p. 128 |
| Introduction | p. 128 |
| Cause in Fact (Necessary Condition) | p. 129 |
| Whodunit? | p. 129 |
| Why did it Happen? | p. 131 |
| When did the Defect get Introduced? | p. 136 |
| "Substantial Factor" Cause-in-fact | p. 137 |
| Proximate Causation | p. 138 |
| Introduction | p. 138 |
| Product Danger X, Harm Y | p. 140 |
| Superseding ("Intervening") Causes | p. 142 |
| The Defendant's Case: Affirmative Defenses to Defectiveness Claims | p. 146 |
| Introduction | p. 146 |
| The Injured User (or Her Employer) Chose to Use the Product in a Dangerous Way | p. 146 |
| The Product Was Misused | p. 146 |
| The Product Was Obviously Dangerous | p. 150 |
| The Product Was Inherently Dangerous | p. 151 |
| The Product Was Altered | p. 154 |
| The Product Was "Made to Order" | p. 155 |
| Too Much Time Has Passed to Hold Defendant Liable | p. 157 |
| The Product's Useful Life had Expired | p. 157 |
| The Harm was Intergenerational (Not Caused to the User) | p. 161 |
| The Legislature has said it's too Late to Sue | p. 162 |
| "State of the Art" Defense (The Product was as Safe as it could be) | p. 164 |
| General Comments | p. 164 |
| "State of the Art" and Informational Defects | p. 167 |
| "State of the Art" and Design Defect | p. 169 |
| "State of the Art" and Post-Sale Duties | p. 172 |
| Regulatory Preemption Defense (The Product Was as Safe as the Government Said it had to be) | p. 175 |
| The Problem | p. 175 |
| The Supreme Court's "Solution" | p. 178 |
| The Standards Defense (Our Product was as Safe as Our Competitors' Product) | p. 185 |
| The Defendant's Case: Causation and Other Peoples' Behavior | p. 187 |
| Introduction | p. 187 |
| Contributory Negligence | p. 188 |
| Comparative Negligence | p. 190 |
| General Remarks | p. 190 |
| Complicating Factor: Multiple Defendants | p. 194 |
| Assumption of Risk | p. 197 |
| "Last Clear Chance" | p. 198 |
| The Defendant's Case: Other Affirmative Defenses | p. 200 |
| "I Made It, But Someone Else Designed it." | p. 200 |
| Contracts Specification Defense | p. 201 |
| Government Contractor Defense | p. 203 |
| "It Wouldn't have made a Differences if I had Warned you." | p. 204 |
| 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 | p. 205 |
| A Third Party Warned the Victim, So the Lack of Warning on the Product was of no Consequence | p. 210 |
| 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 | p. 211 |
| The Circumstances of the Injury make it Virtually Impossible that a Warning, had it been given, would have been Heeded | p. 211 |
| "We Agreed I wouldn't be Liable for this." | p. 212 |
| "You're Paid to Face these Dangers." | p. 216 |
| Damages | p. 218 |
| Introduction: Additional Facts About Julian Felipe's Case | p. 218 |
| Compensatory Damages for Personal Injury and Death | p. 220 |
| Wage Loss | p. 220 |
| Pain and Suffering | p. 221 |
| Fear of Future Injury and Medical Monitoring | p. 224 |
| Wrongful death | p. 226 |
| Other Compensatory Damages | p. 227 |
| Economic Damage to Tangible Property (Other than to the Product Itself) | p. 227 |
| "Pure" Economic Loss | p. 227 |
| Other Compensatory Damages-Continued | |
| Additional Compensatory Damages in Case of Alleged Fraud | p. 231 |
| Punitive Damages | p. 232 |
| Special Situations and Proposed Alternatives to Products Liability Law | |
| Special Types of Product Litigation: Toxic Substances and Class Actions | p. 242 |
| Introduction | p. 242 |
| Judicial Administration of Toxic Products Cases | p. 246 |
| Causation Problems in Toxic Products Cases | p. 249 |
| Plaintiff's Behavior as a Contributing Cause to Toxic Products Liability | p. 253 |
| Damages Issues in Toxic Products Claims | p. 254 |
| Potential but Unrealized Disease | p. 254 |
| Property Damage and Loss of Profits | p. 254 |
| Punitive Damages | p. 256 |
| Alternative Approaches to Ensuring Product Safety | p. 258 |
| Introduction | p. 258 |
| Replacing Products Liability with Contract | p. 258 |
| Libertarian Abolition of Products Liability | p. 258 |
| Free Choice of State Law | p. 259 |
| Replacing State Products Liability Law with a National Law | p. 261 |
| Federal Legislation | p. 261 |
| Uniform State Laws of Product Liability | p. 263 |
| Federal Common Law | p. 264 |
| International Approaches to Products Liability Law | p. 266 |
| Replacing Products Liability with Social Insurance | p. 268 |
| Table of Cases | p. 279 |
| Index | p. 289 |
| Table of Contents provided by Ingram. All Rights Reserved. |