This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
If you’re hurt by a poorly made product, you might well have a straightforward negligence case against the manufacturer. But as mass production ramped up over the last century, some judges found the existing negligence frame unsatisfactory. Escola is famous not for its majority opinion but its concurrence, one in which Justice Traynor urges a seemingly entirely new regime for the burgeoning number of cases in which a product hurts a consumer: strict liability.
Within a few years, Traynor’s vision become a majority one in many jurisdictions, including his own California, though with enough caveats that the “strict” is probably no longer the best moniker. Instead, it’s a regime all its own: products liability.
Today’s and tomorrow’s cases look at products liability and its caveats, including what would become three major types of cases brought under its rubric: manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure of warnings. As you read this cases, it’s worth considering, both in theory and in practice, when a case that would work under products liability would fail in plain negligence – or vice versa.EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST
Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (5/5 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/5 playlist item notes are private)
|1||Show/Hide More||XX.A. Introduction to Products Liability|
|1.1||Show/Hide More||MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.--"The Broken Wooden Wheel Case"|
|1.2||Show/Hide More||Ryan v. Progressive Grocery Stores, Inc. -- "The Pin in the Bread Case"|
|1.3||Show/Hide More||Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Company of Fresno--"The Exploding Coke Bottle Case"|
|2||Show/Hide More||XX.B. Manufacturing Defects|
|3||Show/Hide More||XX.C. Manufacturing Defects Versus Design Defects|
|3.1||Show/Hide More||Rix v. General Motors Corp. -- "The Truck that couldn't Brake"|
|4||Show/Hide More||XX.D. Manufacturing Defects Versus Failures to Warn|
|4.1||Show/Hide More||Emery v. Federated Foods, Inc. -- "The Toddlers Shouldn't Eat Marshmallows Case"|
|5||Show/Hide More||XX.E. The Restatement Approach to Products Liability|
September 18, 2015
Harvard Law School
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you.