Question for the DOE v. MILES LABORATORIES, INC. In a footnote in Doe, Judge Ram

Question

Question for the DOE v. MILES LABORATORIES, INC.

In a footnote in Doe, Judge Ramsey considered the argument that strict products liability has the potential to drive some manufacturers into bankruptcy, 675 F.Supp. at 1471 n. 3:

The argument is often made that strict products liability has the potential to bankrupt manufacturers. Such an argument misses the salutary economic role strict products liability plays. Understood properly, it can be seen that strict liability promotes a rational market place. Society cannot make rational decisions concerning the allocation of resources unless the price reflects the true costs. When the price rises greatly, reflecting the fact the product produces either substantial direct costs or creates widespread externalities, it is rational to discourage or even abandon consumption of that product. Strict products liability thus allows the marketplace to make better informed decisions.

QUESTION: When is a manufacturer likely to be driven into bankruptcy as a result of a switch from negligence-based liability to strict products liability? Is it allocatively efficient to eliminate such a manufacturer?

Explanation / Answer

Strict liability, similar to negligence, enables the harmed gathering to look for remuneration from whoever was in charge of the product being deficient. Dissimilar to negligence, the harmed individual does not have to find who precisely neglected to do their obligation. Strict liability requires just that the product be damaged and preposterously unsafe. Any gathering in the chain of trade can be obligated under strict liability: The producer, wholesaler, vender, segment parts provider. This permits the harmed party a less expensive, more open course to pay, particularly if the producer is situated in an outside nation. The wholesaler or dealer in the United States can be sued without requiring that the outside maker be gotten by the harmed individual.

A defense frequently brought up in product liability cases is that the offended party has not adequately recognized the provider of the product that purportedly caused the damage. An offended party must have the capacity to interface the product with the gathering in charge of assembling or providing it. There is an exemption to this lead, known as the "piece of the overall industry obligation" special case, which applies in cases including blemished drugs. Where an offended party can't distinguish which of the pharmaceutical organizations that supply a specific medication provided the medication he/she took, every maker will be held liable by its level of offers in the zone where the damage happened. Another defense a producer may raise is that the offended party significantly adjusted the product after it exited the maker's control, and this change caused the offended party's damage. A related resistance is that the offended party abused the product in an unforeseeable way, and that his/her abuse of the product cause the wounds asserted.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Q
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.