Search

The opacity, autonomy and complexity of AI systems can stand in the way of a fair and efficient allocation of risk and loss. The European Commission (EC) has recognized this and has addressed these matters in two proposals for two directives: the AI Liability Directive and a new Product Liability Directive. Both Directives address information asymmetries between parties in a liability claim by providing new rules on the burden of proof. In addition, the proposed Product Liability Directive has been brought 'up-to-date' by explicitly incorporating new technical developments and by ending the debate on software as a product. Nevertheless, the injured party might still not receive compensation for the damage caused by a defective AI-system. This gives rise to the question of whether the legal framework for compensation should be revised more boldly to ensure compensation for the damage suffered by the injured party. This contribution will explore such a bold approach by delving into compensation funds. More specifically, this contribution will examine how a compensation fund for damage caused by AI-systems can be designed as well as what its boundaries could or should be and what its benefits could be. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The consumer expectations standard for design defect has been the subject of fierce debate since its inception. Though many see it as the test that best reflects the plaintiff-friendly goals of products liability, others critique it as vague, outdated, and ripe for jury misuse. Once the primary test for design defect under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the consumer expectations test has since been rejected by the Restatement (Third) of Torts, and its use has been eliminated or restricted in approximately half of all states in favor of the risk-utility test. Much of the reasoning behind this growing rejection revolves around the idea that juries cannot handle--or cannot be trusted to handle--design defect cases under the consumer expectations standard, which critics consider impractical and overly vague. This Note explores the ways that states have crafted their design defect standards in the wake of the Restatement (Third) and evaluates the reasoning behind their choices to restrict or support the use of the consumer expectations test. In light of the way that consumer expectations jurisdictions have evolved their inquiry from the original test endorsed by the Restatement (Second), this Note argues that the common critiques against consumer expectations are themselves dated and unrepresentative of the test's capabilities, practical value, or rigor. Not only does this Note show that the basis for many states' and scholars' rejection of consumer expectations is built upon a caricature, it also demonstrates that the standard itself is sophisticated and helps meet a need within products liability that the risk-utility test alone cannot. This Note does not advocate for the elimination of other design defect standards such as "risk-utility." Instead, it simply advises that consumer expectations be included within all design defect frameworks, as the standard is a necessary tool to level the playing field for plaintiffs in products liability cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reexamines the equilibrium product choices in a spatial Cournot n- oligopoly on the linear market by considering the case of output that accidentally harms consumers and firms that are subject to product liability. We characterize the resulting spatial pattern in terms of uniqueness and stability. For low levels of the unit cost of accident, central agglomeration is the unique and stable location equilibrium. For a high enough unit cost of accident, multiple equilibria exist: from central agglomeration to partial dispersion (both asymmetric and symmetric). In this case we show that asymmetric dispersion equilibria as well as symmetrical three-variety equilibria are unstable, whereas there always exists a symmetrical two-variety location equilibrium that is stable. Finally, complete dispersion appears as a very specific case that is limited to duopoly and triopoly: For markets with more firms, equilibrium product differentiation involves partial clustering on three varieties/locations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes the socially optimal liability allocation when strictly liable Cournot firms delegate their safety and output choices to managers whose potential biases are chosen by firm owners and consumers misperceive product risks. Firm owners always hire managers who are overconfident about their product safety's effectiveness in reducing product-related accident risk. However, the extent of overconfidence depends on consumers' risk perceptions and the allocation of liability. As a result, the socially optimal liability allocation hinges on whether consumers underestimate or overestimate product risk. When consumers overestimate product risks, firms should be held liable for all losses incurred by consumers. However, when consumers underestimate risk, firms should only be held liable for a part of consumer losses. We also show that, in some circumstances, negligence produces socially more desirable outcomes than strict liability (JEL : K13, L13, L14). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Chengdu University (Social Science) is the property of Journal of Chengdu University (Social Science Edition) Editorial Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

To provide protection against harm caused by defective, unsafe products and to promote product safety, the law of product liability has developed as a specialized area of the law of delict (tort). The vexing question is, who should bear such liability? This contribution interrogates the notorious EU development risk defence, which exonerates manufacturers that meet certain stringent requirements for undiscoverable development risks in products that consequently inflict harm on consumers. In particular, it considers the election by South Africa, which recently adopted a "strict" product liability regime with the introduction of the Consumer Protection Act 2008, not to adopt such a defence. The purpose of this contribution is to consider the nature and scope of the development risk defence as contained in article 7(e) of the European Union (EU) Product Liability Directive and to determine whether it was prudent for South Africa to steer clear of incorporating a similar defence in its new statutory product liability regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While maladaptive consumption and its consequences are well known, the management and regulation of such consumption is fraught with numerous issues related to definition, locus of responsibility, and potential modes of intervention. The present article provides a review of the conceptual, methodological, and policy issues surrounding maladaptive consumption. The authors suggest that marketing has an important and unique role in the design of products and regulation intended to address maladaptive consumption. Questions for future research and public policy are identified and discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Computer und Recht is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article explores the ethical dilemmas that arise in product development and the release of unsafe products. It provides examples of the Stint electric cargo bike, Philips respiratory ventilators, and Boeing's 737 MAX airplanes to illustrate how the pressure to compete in the market can compromise safety and quality. The author argues for the importance of ethical leadership, a culture of quality, and responsible product development. They also call for increased training in ethics and leadership for those involved in technology development. Additionally, the article discusses the challenges of regulating next-generation, AI-powered product ecosystems and raises concerns about the potential societal and health impacts of incorporating AI into products. The author emphasizes the need for a cautious and responsible approach to product development. [Extracted from the article]

On 12 March 2024, the European Parliament adopted in first reading the Product Liability Directive, adding substantial amendments to the European Commission's proposal of 2022. The aim of the reform is to adapt the famous 1985 Product Liability Directive to the digital age and make it easier for consumers to enforce their rights in court. It notably introduces a duty of disclosure and various alleviations of the burden of proof. The present paper describes the proposed rules on disclosure of evidence and presumptions, charts the changes between the Commission's proposal in 2022 and the Parliament's adoption in 2024, and attempts to assess whether the new product liability regime will meet the challenges of its time and be a game changer in helping consumers enforce their rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper shall give an overview of the forthcoming changes to EU product liability law as foreseen by the planned new directive. While more details will be given by the further contributions to this issue, the key elements of the proposal will be outlined, with a particular focus on the expansion of the regime to software and other digital products. The contributions to this special issue of the Journal of European Tort Law (JETL) present and analyse the upcoming changes to product liability law in the EU. My task is to give a short introduction to where we stand, why we got here, and what the authors of the following articles will focus on in more detail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the end of September 2022, the European Commission presented two notable documents designed to fundamentally change the current system of product liability in Europe. In part, these projects were a response to the challenges posed by digitalization and modern technology. The first document is designed to regulate liability for harm caused by artificial intelligence systems, while the second is aimed at adapting the EU Council Directive of July 25, 1985 No. 85/374/EEC to contemporary conditions. The present article sets out to review the key developments in the field of product liability in Europe. To this end, a review of the existing system of product liability in Europe is carried out. The existing product liability system is comprised of two parts: norms enshrined in national laws, as well as harmonized liability under the EU Council Directive of July 25, 1985 No. 85/374/EEC 1985. However, there is no consensus in European doctrine and practice regarding the regime of harmonized liability. While on the one hand, this regime is based on the idea of strict liability, on the other hand, there is also a reasoned opinion that the Directive factually establishes a regime of liability based on fault. On the example of German law, it is revealed that, despite the strict liability regime approved by special law, courts often focus in practice on a manufacturer’s breach of the duty of care, which once again testifies to liability based on fault. Possible factors behind the decision on the part of the European regulator to reform the existing liability system include: the increasing complexity of the goods themselves; the expansion of intermediary chains and emergence of new potential subjects of liability, including owners of aggregators; difficulties in proving the existence of a product defect and a causal link between such a defect and the resulting harm; the concept of harm in the digital age and the special role of data; providers’ liability for goods equipped with artificial intelligence technology.

Copyright of African Journal of Reproductive Health is the property of Women's Health & Action Research Centre and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Research Summary: Being able to sell a business not only allows a firm to exit an industry but is also a motivation for entrepreneurial entry. Therefore, factors that make acquisitions less desirable for potential acquirers could not only affect the rate of acquisitions, but also entry and exit. We test this in the context of judicial adoptions of product line exceptions, which increased acquirer exposure to potential accumulated liabilities. We find that after adoption, and relative to nonmanufacturing establishments, acquisitions of manufacturing establishments decrease, while exits through closure increase. Relative entry of manufacturing establishments declines. These effects are higher in industries where resalability of physical capital is lower and for smaller entrants. Interestingly, while the likelihood of acquisitions declines for older establishments, it increases for younger ones. Managerial Summary: Making it harder to sell a business not only hinders business transfers but also affects business entry and exit. This is because entrepreneurs and businesses often exit by selling to other firms, not just through closures. Based on comprehensive data on US establishments, we provide evidence supporting this thesis. We find that after judicial adoption of a legal principle that holds acquirers accountable for the acquired firm's product line liabilities, the probability of manufacturing establishments (which are more likely to have such liabilities) being acquired decreases more than that of other establishments. Simultaneously, closures as a form of exit increase, and the relative entry of manufacturing establishments declines. These findings underscore the strategic importance of acquisition‐driven exits for businesses and entrepreneurs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the realm of autonomous driving tort, a significant disparity exists in the parties' access to autonomous driving data and essential technical information, resulting in challenges in unilateral proof. The traditional burden of proof framework in driving litigation is inadequate for direct application in the autonomous driving sphere. As we approach the era of widespread autonomous driving operations, there is an urgent need to clarify and redefine the allocation of the burden of proof in specific litigations. Utilizing comparative legal analysis and case studies, this paper delves into the disparities in the legislative provisions concerning the burden of proof for autonomous driving in Germany and China. China can learn from Germany's legislative precedence in shifting the burden of proof for "product defect" and "fault" onto the manufacturer, thereby requiring the infringed party to merely furnish preliminary evidence indicating a "causal relationship between the defect and the damage". This approach mitigates the evidentiary burden on the aggrieved party, clarifies the litigation procedures, incentivizes manufacturers to enhance the technology, reinforces risk management, and ultimately facilitates the progression of autonomous driving technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consumer protection is an aspect which aims to ensure that consumers are always given adequate protection from a legal perspective and also to increase the level of consumers' trust in the quality of goods and services, which will, in turn, contribute to the economic growth of a nation. However, today, issues surrounding product liability cases are no longer uncommon, where consumers or third parties face the risk of suffering injury or property damage due to the existence of defects in a particular product. Thus, the main objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between consumer protection and product liability from both civil and Islamic perspectives. The type of research being carried out is doctrinal legal research. The data sources, including case law and statutory provision, are analyzed using content and critical analysis methods. The results show that according to civil and Islamic perspectives, consumer protection in the context of product liability plays a crucial role in conferring legal protection to consumers who are adversely affected by the use of particular products that pose a risk to health and safety. Further, the authors expect that the results of this study shall contribute new and significant knowledge by proving that the aspect of consumer protection is not only related to product liability issues from a civil perspective, but it is also can be evaluated from the Islamic perspective, which the earlier researchers have rarely discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023 8(3), 1539-1554 | European Forum Insight of 4 March 2024 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Cross-Border Telemedicinetext. - III. Clinical Risk. - IV. Product Liability. - IV.1. Conflicts of Jurisdiction. - IV.2. Conflicts of Laws. - V. Health Professional's Liability. - V.1. Conflicts of Jurisdiction. - V.2. Conflicts of Laws. - VI. Conclusions. | (Abstract) Telemedicine raises complex legal issues. The challenging regulatory choices needed to adequately cope with the digital transformation of healthcare become more pronounced when the provision of healthcare services bridges national borders. Recently the EU has undoubtedly presented itself as a particularly active player in harmonising the Member States’ substantive regimes on civil liability. However, harmonisation is still far from complete. Against this background, the general instruments of EU private international law have proved to be relatively fit for accommodating diverse legal orders in the digital age. Yet, their interaction with cross-border eHealth services remains to some extent complex and uncertain, last but not least in the light of the uncertain characterisation of medical liability.

The bridge towards fully autonomous, context-aware surgical robots is fraught with challenges, not least of which is ascribing legal responsibility in the event of inadvertent patient injury or death. Of the civil liability frameworks potentially applicable to AI-related harm, this article examines the substantive rules of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability and the European Commission's newly proposed directive on liability for defective products to determine whether a plaintiff would be entitled to redress against a manufacturer should patient injury or death occur during an operation performed by a fully autonomous surgical robot. Specifically, the comparative analysis discusses the concepts of 'product' and 'defectiveness' and information disclosure provisions, anticipated to be the primary legal battlegrounds in this area. Overall, the article contends that the existing product liability framework in the US and the regime proposed in Europe would not be entirely inadequate for protecting the fundamental rights of patients in the context of autonomous robotic surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept al Afacerilor is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the legal and medical aspects involved during hip replacement surgery. Other topics include the rising medical malpractice claims due to said surgery, the potential legal ramifications of replacement surgery like product liability, informed consent deficits, and medical malpractice claims, and how said surgery bolster the overall quality of life of patients.

The American Law Institute (ALI) has approved volume 3 of the new Restatement (Third) of Torts, which includes a section on first-party bad faith. The ALI aims to clarify and simplify the law, and the restatement process involves drafts, input from advisers and members, and final approval by the ALI Council. The Third Restatement expands on the treatment of bad faith in the Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance (RLLI), specifically in section 20 A. This section provides a comprehensive overview of first-party bad faith law, covering its history, the nature of insurance contracts, the subjective and objective nature of the tort, and the obligations of insurers. It also addresses issues such as the timing of an insurer's knowledge, the scope of liability, and the damages that an insured may recover. While the impact of section 20 A on the future of first-party bad faith law is uncertain, it serves as a useful summary of the principles and may be a valuable resource for lawyers and judges in this area. [Extracted from the article]

The ecologization of traditional producer's product liability is an inevitable result of the requirement of developing an ecological society and the ecologization trend of the law. The traditional producer's product liability is limited to the protection of national, individual, and social interests in terms of its concept, purpose, and content. Therefore, it is hard for this liability to provide a basis for the assumption of preventive and actual ecological duties, to provide a guarantee for the relief effort of ecological interest damages, and to meet the requirement of developing an ecological society. However, with the development of an ecological society and the promotion of ecological civilization, not only have the realistic needs of ecological interest protection been strengthened, but the ecologization of the concept, theory, and purpose of product liability has also highlighted the legitimacy and necessity of the ecologization of traditional producer's product liability. Meanwhile, the theory of ecological legal liability, the ecologization of product policies, and the ecologization of law also provide a guarantee for the feasibility of the ecologization of traditional producer's product liability. Thus, the ecologization of traditional producer's product liability should be promoted from the perspectives of the concept, purpose, and content of product liability in substantive law. The concept, purpose, and content of the 'green, recycled, low-carbon' concept of ecological liability should be incorporated throughout the entire lifecycle of producers' products and internalized by producers as behavioral consciousness in product design, production, sales, and waste product recycling. A holistic liability system should be established so that traditional liability and ecological liability can complement, collaborate, and communicate with each other. In procedural law, the relief model of separating public and private interests should continue to be used so that the function and efficiency of the existing system can be exerted and the failure of prevention and relief caused by excessive demands on existing judicial organs, judicial systems, and judicial personnel can be avoided in cases where public and private interests are intertwined. Naturally, to prevent the generalization of producer's product liability, the ecologization of traditional producer's product liability should be based on necessity rather than being an unlimited process, which should neither hinder the function of traditional product liability nor break through the limitations and provisions of objective conditions such as time, space, and facts in investigating product liability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of smart homes globally has increased to 300 million, and the smart home market is expected to reach approximately $181.4 billion by 2025. These new developments, however, are accompanied by related security risks. The attack surface for smart home devices poses latent dangers because of inadequate security that enables cybercriminals to gain access to such devices. This Article proposes extending product liability to address security vulnerabilities in smart home devices. Part I examines the ubiquity of smart home devices. Part II sets forth the breadth of security vulnerabilities in connected devices, confirming the need to clarify that product liability applies to software and to create a global standard that reduces compliance costs for smart home device makers. Part III develops a detailed global standard for smart home device product liability, aligning U.S. product liability law with the proposed revision of the European Union's Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors of the Principles of European Tort Law (PETL) did not intend to regulate in detail the strict liability of a manufacturer for damage caused by a defect in its product. While creating general principles of liability for damage caused otherwise than by breach of an obligation, they had no need to refer to those problems for which uniform and detailed solutions already existed in the European Communities. Product liability was such a problem (the only one in the area of tort law, by the way). Given the existence of the 1985 Product Liability Directive, there was no need to look for an answer to the issue of the victim's claim against the producer in the PETL's provisions on strict liability (art 5:101 PETL) or on fault-based undertaking liability (art 4:202 PETL). However, the need for this has emerged in recent years. As technology and business models have developed, new possibilities of harm to users of products (in the broad sense of the latter term) and third parties have emerged, which seem to call for the liability of the manufacturer or commercial intermediaries. This liability, however, cannot be based on 1985 Product Liability Directive (PLD) provisions. The question therefore arises whether the Principles adopted in 2005 would be a sufficient foundation upon which such a liability rule could be built. The article discusses some of these new damage scenarios and explains why neither the narrow approach to strict liability in PETL nor its fault-based enterprise liability rule yields satisfactory results in relation to them. It then outlines the current proposal for a new European product liability law, aiming to fill these liability gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper studies the efficient definition of product defects for AI systems with autonomous capabilities. It argues that defining defects in product liability law is central to distributing responsibility between producers and users. The paper proposes aligning the standard for defect with the relative control over and awareness of product risk possessed by the producer and the user. AI systems disrupt the traditional balance of control and risk awareness between users and producers. The paper provides suggestions for defining AI product defects in a way that promotes an efficient allocation of liability in AI-related accidents. It assesses whether the recent EU policy proposal on product liability aligns with this approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Istanbul Law Review / İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası is the property of Istanbul Law Review / Istanbul Hukuk Mecmuasi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In order to solve the problem of traditional two-dimensional image methods being unable to obtain depth information during surface detection of cigarettes, a new detection method based on rotary scanning of linear structured light sensor was proposed. The cigarette is rotated by the rotation of two rolling wheels in the same direction. The linear structured light vision sensor was used to obtain the axial contour of the object, the random sampling consistency was used to fit the contour, and the distance between the original point and the fitted contour was calculated to judge the defect point. The original data obtained from a certain brand cigarette during the detection process were selected, and the Kappa value of multiple groups of samples reached 0.97, with repeatability reaching 99.3%. The study provides reference for the subsequent detection of cigarette defects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical examination of injured plaintiffs by doctors hired by defendants is a staple of modern tort litigation. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 and its state counterparts authorize such examinations when the plaintiff's physical or mental condition is at issue. Although typically dubbed "independent" medical examinations or IMEs, their use often appears to be anything but independent in that defense-retained medical professionals have a strong financial incentive to dispute or diminish injury claims in order to obtain or retain a steady stream of lucrative work from defendants and their insurers. Although often tainted, defense-driven medical examinations remain necessary as a matter of due process. Defendants are entitled to test plaintiff claims. But they are not entitled to disparage those claims through a black box process in which the defense expert fails to sufficiently disclose or accurately describe the nature of the examination, including administration of tests or environmental factors impacting the examination. Empirical study reveals that defective, inaccurately reported defense examinations take place with disturbing frequency. To prevent tainted examinations from tainting justice, video recording, observation of the process, and production of testing and diagnostic materials should be the norm and not the exception. Unless forensic examination is made fully transparent it can easily promote error and unjust results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The implementation of artificial intelligence as a medical decision support tool for triage, such as the SmED system in Germany, raises its potential application as a medical decision support for the use of telemedicine. The use of this self-learning artificial intelligence system (machine learning) raises the question of who is liable for damages in the event of an erroneous prediction by the system. This paper explores the answer to this question in line with the proposed new regulatory framework for AI in the European Union: the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on adapting non-contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence [AI Liability Directive-COM (2022) 496 final] and the Proposal for a Directive on liability for defective products [COM (2022) 493 final]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court (OGH) has ruled that no compensation will be granted under the Product Liability Act (PHG) if an intrauterine device (IUD) goes unnoticed and there is no sufficient evidence of a defect. However, the burden of proof rule for a procedure against the treating physician may be different if they have violated their documentation obligation. In the present case, the plaintiff could not prove that the IUD used was defective. The appellate court confirmed the decision and allowed for a revision, as there was no supreme court jurisprudence on product liability for contraceptive IUDs. [Extracted from the article]

The article describes a case before the Supreme Court (OGH) in Austria, which deals with the question of whether an unintended pregnancy and birth, despite the use of a contraceptive coil, can lead to compensation for financial losses. The OGH suggests that national case law on "wrongful conception" is not applicable within the scope of the Product Liability Directive. The plaintiff accuses the manufacturer of the coil of producing faulty products and not adequately informing the public about the defect. The court dismissed the lawsuit as it could not establish any liability on the part of the manufacturer. [Extracted from the article]

This article explores the concept of including semen in products liability law. The author argues that both semen and products liability are often overlooked and not openly discussed. The author provides evidence from case law and secondary sources to support their arguments. They discuss the underrepresentation of semen in medical texts and online platforms, as well as the under-mentioning of products liability despite its importance. The author defends the inclusion of semen as a product in products liability law and highlights the potential benefits of stricter liability. Overall, the article aims to promote a better understanding of the legal implications and potential liability associated with semen. [Extracted from the article]

Product guarantees are known to the manufacturing industry, however warranties have been rare in Orthopaedic surgery. Over the last 10 years, select manufacturers of implants have instituted warranties of varying scope, length, and reimbursement. This phenomenon prompted us to investigate the landscape of warranties in Orthopaedics and compare that to other medical industries to better inform their impact on patient care. We conducted a systematic review of patient access material of over 120 Orthopaedic manufacturers including that of the Top 25 grossing companies of 2022 to identify the prevalence and scope of these warranties. We identified eight companies that offer a warranty on implants. The expiration time for the implant warranties ranged from one year to lifetime. The scope of the warranties ranged from coverage of a one-time component replacement to outcome-based guarantees that cover any complications and revisions that may result from the surgery. While the use of warranties remains uncommon in orthopaedics, their utility is expanding and evolving. Contemporary warranties appear to have a focus on enhancing product-marketability and improving quality-control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the prevalence of assistive-diagnostic artificial intelligence (AI) grows, so too will the legal controversies surrounding its use continue to grow. Consequently, determining liability in cases where patients experience harm due to the use of assistive-diagnostic AI in personal healthcare services requires a re-evaluation of existing civil liability regulations. This article proposes a framework for addressing liability in these situations by exploring medical malpractice, organisational negligence by healthcare institutions, and producer liability.

Liability for defective products has acquired an essential role today, to the extent that within Colombian Law, the importance of the relations between consumers and the natural or legal persons behind the construction and sale of buildings has begun to be assessed so that they assume the damages that affect the real estate they market and that end up negatively impacting the health or assets of their customers. owners or residents. It is for this reason, that this research article seeks to analyze, on the one hand, the main rights that arise to the consumer who acquires and uses real estate in his daily actions and, on the other, aims to address elements that are nece, gastassary for the attribution of responsibility to the different actors that build and sell these buildings. Additionally, a recent court case is analyzed in which the Supreme Court of Justice examined the liability for defective properties in favor of several consumers who were affected by multiple damages in their apartments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under modern tort law, the "strict" product liability cause of action does not impose true strict liability (liability without fault). This Article suggests that this counterintuitive development is not the byproduct of a policy choice. Instead, an unresolved doctrinal difficulty is responsible for the modern requirement that a plaintiff prove fault before winning on a "strict" product liability claim. The doctrinal difficulty is this: How can tort law impose liability on faultless product manufacturers while simultaneously preventing plaintiffs with fault from being able to recover under a true strict liability standard? This Article posits that both results are desirable--true strict product liability, but not for plaintiffs with fault--but that it is analytically difficult to assemble tort doctrine to get both results. Without a doctrinal solution that allows for both results, courts have (mostly) retreated from a true strict product liability standard. This Article offers a simple solution to this analytical/doctrinal riddle: Restoring the strict product liability cause of action such that it truly imposes liability without fault, while allowing defendants a contributory negligence (flat-bar) defense to this strict liability claim. Under this doctrinal change, plaintiffs without fault would be able to recover from manufacturers on a true strict product liability claim. Plaintiffs with fault, however, would be forced to pursue a negligence claim, meaning that their ability to recover would require them to show that the defendant also had fault. This doctrinal fix uses tools and concepts already familiar to modern tort law and is thus easily achievable. In fact, all that is necessary to effectuate this result is a simple, minor change to the current comparative fault jury instructions used in most jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dynamic evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) tools poses challenges to the existing liability concepts. This paper aims to examine some of the fields of tortious liability that are most affected by these developments to analyse whether the existing legal standards in civil liability can still be used, with slight reinterpretation, when approaching liability scenarios related to AI and ML, and whether fine tuning of the existing liability regimes is needed, or novel liability scenarios should be established. To answer this question, the paper begins by examining the nature of the regulation of AI and ML: whether it should be a regulatory regime neutral to technology or whether, instead, a sector specific approach is essential. The study considers the already existing legal authorities of the EU and the U.S. as starting points for the analysis, and briefly examines the interpretations municipal courts apply when deciding in AI and ML related tort cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Law / Teise is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article examines the liability for defective products sold on the e-marketplace of online retailer Amazon and shifting trends in state liability laws. Topics discussed include historical context regarding product liability evolution and product liability in e-commerce, court opinions on e-marketplace cases related to defective products, extension of tort liability, negligence and warranty, statutory information requirements and compensation for injury or property damage claims.

This article explores the conflicting positions of the Second and Third Restatements of Torts on product defect law. The Second Restatement advocated for strict enterprise liability, while the Third Restatement favored negligence liability. The article provides an overview of the historical development of product liability law and the different approaches taken by American courts. It discusses the transition from the third stage to the fourth stage of product liability law, which embraced strict enterprise liability. The article also discusses the concept of enterprise liability in products liability law, distinguishing between manufacturing defects and design defects. It emphasizes the importance of accurately attributing accidents to activities and differentiating between manufacturer and user activity. The article compares the California products liability law framework, which is stricter, to the negligence-inflected regime of the Third Restatement. It concludes by highlighting ongoing debates and disagreements among jurisdictions regarding design defect law. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Revista Chilena de Derecho Privado is the property of Fundacion Fernando Fueyo Laneri and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

To refine the fatigue lifespan of products such as automobiles, refrigerators, etc., parametric accelerated life testing (ALT), as a new method for ensuring structured reliability, put forward to assess designs by subjecting them to repeated loads. This method is based on identifying the failure mechanism and redesigning the product. It involves: (1) a parametric ALT procedure based on BX lifespan, (2) load evaluation for elevated life experiments, (3) a tailored sample of parametric ALTs with changes, and (4) a calculation of whether the product reaches the BX lifespan objective. As such, life-stress failure type are suggested along with effort idea, accelerated factor, and sample size. This method of structured reliability, such as parametric ALT, might help designers to discover the product flaws influencing reliability, as indicated by enhancement in life, LB, and lower failure rate, λ, seen during the design phase. As a result, manufacturers may avoid recall due to market failure. As a test investigation, we redesigned a hinge kit system (HKS) in a household refrigerator. After tailoring the ALT parameters, HKSs with modifications were predicted to fulfil the life objective—B1 life of ten years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasingly courts, including the Supreme Court, rely on ossified versions of the common law to decide cases. This Article demonstrates the risks of this use of the common law. The main contribution of the Article is to demonstrate that the traditional narrative about early products law—that manufacturers were not liable for injuries caused by their products because the doctrine of privity granted producers immunity from suit by the ultimate consumers of their goods—is incorrect. Instead, the doctrinal rule was negligence liability for producers of injurious goods across the United States in the nineteenth century. Courts routinely ignored or rejected privity arguments, and contract was not their paradigm for understanding a producer’s relationship with users of its products. This analysis has implications for how we view the development of the common law today. And it serves as a warning not to rely on potted histories from casebooks in determining what the common law was in the past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]