Search

IV. TOBACCO INDUSTRY INFLUENCE OVER THE RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS A. THE RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: PRODUCT LIABILITY In 1991, twenty-six years after Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of [...]

ABSTRACT: The American Law Institute ("ALI") is a prestigious and influential organization that creates treatises on the current state of the law, including "Restatements" of case law that guide judicial [...]

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1438 II. THE SAFETY BENEFIT OF PRODUCT LIABILITY 1443 A. Incentives To Reduce Product Risk Generated by Market 1443 Forces B. Regulation of Product Risk [...], In this Article we compare the benefits of product liability to its costs and conclude that the case for product liability is weak for a wide range of products. One benefit of product liability is that it can induce firms to improve product safety. Even in the absence of product liability, however, firms would often be motivated by market forces to enhance product safety because their sales may fall if their products harm consumers. Moreover, products must frequently conform to safety regulations. Consequently, product liability might not exert a significant additional influence on product safety for many products--and empirical studies of several widely sold products lend support to this hypothesis. A second benefit of product liability is that it can improve consumer purchase decisions by causing product prices to increase to reflect product risks. But because of litigation costs and other factors, product liability may raise prices excessively and undesirably chill purchases. A third benefit of product liability is that it compensates victims of product-related accidents for their losses. Yet this benefit is only partial, for accident victims are frequently compensated by insurers for some or all of their losses. Furthermore, the award of damages for pain and suffering tends to reduce the welfare of individuals because it effectively forces them to purchase insurance for a type of loss for which they ordinarily do not wish to be covered. Opposing the benefits of product liability are its costs, which are great. Notably, the transfer of a dollar to a victim of a product accident through the liability system requires more than a dollar on average in legal expenses. Given the limited nature of the benefits and the high costs of product liability, we come to the judgment that its use is often unwarranted. This is especially likely for products for which market forces and regulation are relatively strong, which includes many widely sold products. Our generally skeptical assessment of product liability for such products is in tension with the broad social endorsement of this form of liability.