Products Liability

Welcome to Products Liability!

I recommend that you create case briefs in the format specified.

Products Liability Generally

Class 01

1. Products liability syllabus

Class 02

1. Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

Class 03

1. Products liability theories
2. After you have read this introduction, (a) carefully organize what you have already learned, in your other courses, about these theories and (b) briefly research any concepts that are still unfamiliar

Development of Strict Products Liability

Class 04

1. Albert L. Clough, The Question of Axles, The Horseless Age (November 6, 1901) [1]
2. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916)
3. Gregory Travis, How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer, IEEE Spectrum (April 18, 2019) [2]

Class 05

1. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 140 P.2d 107 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)
2. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 150 P.2d 436 (Cal. 1944)
3. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 161 A.2d 69 (N.J. 1960)
4. Greenman v. Yuba Power Prod., Inc., 377 P.2d 897 (Cal. 1963)

Class 06

1. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965) (including the comment)
2. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402B (1965) (including the comment)
3. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 1 (1998) (including the comment)
4. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2 (1998) (excluding the comment)

Applicability of Strict Products Liability

Class 07

1. Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc., 930 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2019)
2. Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc., 936 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2019)
3. Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc., 818 F. App'x 138 (3d Cir. 2020)
4. Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc., 237 A.3d 394 (Pa. 2020)
5. Amazon.com Conditions of Use (May 21, 2018) [3]

Class 08

1. Recall Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment f (1965)
2. Iowa Code Ann. § 613.18
3. Council Directive 85/374/EEC [4]
4. Prepare arguments

Class 09

1. Torres v. City of Madera, No. CIVFF02-6385AWILJO, 2005 WL 1683736 (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2005)
2. Torres v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 277 F. App'x 684 (9th Cir. 2008)
3. Menkes v. 3M Co., No. CV 17-0573, 2018 WL 2298620 (E.D. Pa. May 21, 2018)

Class 10

1. Prepare the exercise discussed in class
2. Devin N. Perkins et al., E-Waste: A Global Hazard, Annals of Global Hazard, Annals of Global Health (2014) [5]
3. European Commission, Ship recycling: Reducing human and environmental impacts (2016) [6]
4. In re Old Carco LLC, 587 B.R. 809 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018)
5. Timothy B. Lee, The Heartbleed Bug, Explained, Vox (May 14, 2015) [7]

Defectiveness: Manufacturing

Class 11

1. Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 17 F.3d 209 (7th Cir. 1994)
2. Recall Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment f (1965)
3. Recall Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2(a) (1998)
4. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 3 (1998) (including the comment)
5. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 7 (1998) (including the comment)
6. McKenzie v. S K Hand Tool Corp., 650 N.E.2d 612 (Ill. 1995)
7. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Average Age of Automobiles and Trucks in Operation in the United States [8]

Defectiveness: Design

Class 12

1. Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 864 N.E.2d 249 (Ill. 2007)
2. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Farnsworth, 965 P.2d 1209 (Alaska 1998)

Class 13

1. Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co., 978 F.2d 1386 (5th Cir. 1992)
2. Sperry-New Holland, a Div. of Sperry Corp. v. Prestage, 617 So. 2d 248 (Miss. 1993)
3. Miss. Code. Ann. § 11-1-63
4. Smith v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 819 So. 2d 1258 (Miss. 2002)

Class 14

1. Barker v. Lull Eng'g Co., 573 P.2d 443 (Cal. 1978)
2. Soule v. Gen. Motors Corp., 882 P.2d 298 (Cal. 1994)

Class 15

1. Nesselrode v. Exec. Beechcraft, Inc., 707 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. 1986)
2. What does South Carolina do?
3. What does another state of your choice do?
4. David G. Owen, Design Defects, 73 Mo. L. Rev. 291 (2008) [9] (excluding footnotes)

Class 16

1. For each of our cases to date, (a) consider which party would benefit from an examination of alternative designs; (b) identify at least one alternative design; (c) argue that this alternative design (i) would have prevented or lessened the plaintiff's harm and (ii) would not have prevented or lessened the plaintiff's harm; and (d) argue that this alternative design (i) is reasonable and (ii) is not reasonable

Class 17

1. Recall Gen. Motors Corp. v. Farnsworth, 965 P.2d 1209 (Alaska 1998) with particular attention to the entire timeline from the early 1970s
2. Andrew Sheldon, A Seat Belt History Timeline (November 13, 2020) [10]
3. Grover v. Eli Lilly & Co., 591 N.E.2d 696 (Ohio 1992)

Class 18

1. The T.J. Hooper, 60 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1932)
2. Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp., 424 P.3d 290 (2018)
3. Ruffiner v. Material Serv. Corp., 116 Ill. 2d 53 (1987)
4. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 4 (1998) (including the comment)
5. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Regulatory Compliance Congruity with Liability Act [11]

Class 19

1. Ford Pinto Commercial [12]
2. Mark Dowie, Pinto Madness, Mother Jones (September/October 1977) [13]
3. Gary T. Schwartz, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, 43 Rutgers L. Rev. 1013 (1990-91), available at [14] or [15]
4. 1971 Chevrolet Impala vs. 1972 Ford Pinto Full-Rear Impact [16]
5. US Department of Transportation, Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses - 2016 Adjustment [17]
6. Myron Levin, Engineer's Memo Returns to Haunt GM, Los Angeles Times (April 30, 2001) [18]
7. The Ivey Memo (two pages) [19] [20]
8. Michael Ballaban, The Ivey Memo: The Original Cold Document That Made GM Squirm (2014) [21]
9. Chris Isidore, The 57-cent part at the center of GM's recall crisis, CNN (April 2, 2014) [22]
10. Bill Vlasic, G.M. Inquiry Cites Years of Neglect Over Fatal Defect [23]
    1. Optional: Anton R. Valukas, Report to Board of Directors of General Motors Company Regarding Ignition Switch Recalls (May 29, 2014) ("Valukas Report") [24]

Defectiveness: Information

Class 20

1. Olson v. Prosoco, Inc., 522 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 1994)
2. Nowak By & Through Nowak v. Faberge, U.S.A., Inc., 812 F. Supp. 492 (M.D. Pa. 1992)
3. Mason v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 2010)

Class 21

1. Beshada v. Johns-Manville Prod. Corp., 447 A.2d 539 (N.J. 1982)
2. Feldman v. Lederle Labs., 479 A.2d 374 (N.J. 1984)

Class 22

1. Roman v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 12-CV-276 VEC, 2014 WL 5870743 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2014)
2. Amanda J. Pooley et al., Social Referencing “Mr. Yuk”: The Use of Emotion in a Poison Prevention Program, Journal of Pediatric Psychology (2010) [25]
3. Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., 6 Cal. 4th 539 P.2d 167 (1993)
4. Environmental Standards for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes, 40 C.F.R. § 191.11-17 [26]

Class 23

1. Macrie v. SDS Biotech Corp., 267 N.J. Super. 34, 630 A.2d 805 (App. Div. 1993)
2. Christopher Henry, Death by Dicta: The Life of The Sophisticated User Doctrine in South Carolina Products Liability Law, 69 S.C. L. Rev. 1039 (2018)

Post-Sale Obligations

Class 24

1. Lovick v. Wil-Rich, 588 N.W.2d 688 (Iowa 1999)
2. Bryant Walker Smith, Proximity-Driven Liability, 102 Geo. L.J. 1777 (2014)

Factual Cause and Scope of Liability

Class 25

1. Johnson v. Am. Standard, Inc., 43 Cal. 4th 56, 179 P.3d 905 (2008)
2. Henry v. General Motors Corp., 60 F.3d 1545 (11th Cir. 1995)
3. Maia Szalavitz, 10 Ways We Get the Odds Wrong, Psychology Today (January 1, 2008) [27]
4. Eric Horowitz, Why Are People Bad at Evaluating Risks?, Psychology Today (March 1, 2013) [28]
5. Recall Christopher Henry, Death by Dicta: The Life of The Sophisticated User Doctrine in South Carolina Products Liability Law, 69 S.C. L. Rev. 1039 (2018)
6. Analyze the element of factual cause in at least three strict products liability claims that you have seen in our cases so far; pay particular attention to the relationship with a reasonable alternative design (if any)

Class 26

1. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 15 (1998) (including both the comment and the reporters' note; the case citations are optional)
2. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 16 (1998) (including both the comment and the reporters' note; the case citations are optional)
3. Rooker v. Ford Motor Co., 100 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
4. Baker By & Through Baker v. Int'l Harvester Co., 660 S.W.2d 21 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983)
5. Litowsky v. Asco Power Techs., L.P., 4 F. Supp. 3d 328 (D. Mass. 2014)

Defenses

Class 27

1. Iliades v. Dieffenbacher N. Am. Inc., 501 Mich. 326 (2018)
2. Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 618 Pa. 228 (2012)
3. Standard Havens Prod., Inc. v. Benitez, 648 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1994)

Class 28

1. Donze v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 420 S.C. 8 (2017)
2. Wickersham v. Ford Motor Co., 432 S.C. 384 (2020)

Class 29

1. Recall the affirmative defenses to a claim of negligence
2. Review our prior cases involving federal preemption of state tort law

Class 30

1. Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000)
2. Williamson v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 562 U.S. 323 (2011)
3. The Senate's automated driving bill could squash state authority
4. Optional
   1. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-03, available here
   2. Sarah Herman Peck, When Can the Firearm Industry Be Sued? (2019)

Damages

Class 31

1. East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, 476 U.S. 858 (1986)
2. Dean v. Barrett Homes, Inc., 8 A.3d 766 (N.J. 2010)
3. Khan v. Shiley Inc., 217 Cal. App. 3d 848 (Ct. App. 1990)

Summary

Class 32

1. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965) (including the comment)
2. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2 (1998) (including the comment)
3. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (1998) in its entirety (comments optional but recommended)

Class 33

1. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013)
2. US Department of Health and Human Services, Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19, March 17, 2020
3. US Department of Health and Human Services, Advisory Opinion on the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, May 19, 2020
4. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (just browse this page)

Class 34

1. Come prepared to discuss the products liability implications of artificial intelligence generally and automated driving specifically
2. Your preparation should involve researching relevant technologies and reflecting on the legal rules you have learned
3. These materials on machine learning are optional:
   1. Robbie Allen, A Gentle Introduction to Machine Learning Concepts (2020)
   2. Google Developers, ML Concepts: Introduction to Machine Learning
   3. Google Developers, ML Concepts: Framing 
   4. Google Developers, ML Concepts: Descending into ML
   5. Tyler Vigen, Spurious Correlations
   6. Google Developers, ML Systems in the Real World: Cancer Prediction
   7. Janelle Shane, Do Neural Nets Dream of Electric Sheep?
   8. Kate Crawford and Trevor Paglen, Excavating AI
   9. Janelle Shane, Depixellation or Hallucination
4. My articles on automated driving are also entirely optional

Class 35

1. Prepare for a discussion on confidentiality and arbitration with Daniel Hinkle, Senior State Affairs Counsel at the American Association for Justice
2. Sunshine in Litigation Act, Florida Statutes § 68.081
3. Ronald L. Burdge, Confidentiality in Settlement Agreements Is Bad for Clients, Bad for Lawyers, Bad for Justice (2012)
4. Order on Defendant’s Motion to Continue Protective Order, Toe v. Cooper Tires, Case No. CL 106914 (Iowa D.C. 2012)
5. Anti-Secrecy Staff Attorney, Public Justice (2021)
6. Order Compelling Arbitration, Jabarri v. Wells Fargo, 3:15-cv-02159-VC Doc. 69 (U.S. D.C. N.D. Calif. 2015)
7. The Truth About Forced Arbitration, American Association for Justice (2019) (executive summary and introduction) (remainder of report is optional)

Class 36

1. U.S. ex rel. Moldex-Metric v. 3M Co., Original Complaint Filed in Camera, 3:16-cv-01533-DCC Doc. 1 (D.S.C. May 12, 2016)
2. U.S. ex rel. Moldex-Metric v. 3M Co., Settlement Agreement, 3:16-cv-01533-DCC Doc. 23-1 (D.S.C. July 25, 2018)
3. Begin your lengthy assignment for the next class

Class 37

1. In re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation, Master Long Form Complaint and Jury Trial Demand, 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ Doc. 704 (N.D. Fla. September 20, 2019)
2. In re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation, Answer to Master Long Form Complaint, 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ Doc. 800 (N.D. Fla. October 31, 2019)
3. In re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation, Docket, 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ (current as of April 5, 2021) (skim this docket; note and try to answer your questions about it)

Class 38

1. In re 3M Combat Arms Earplug Prod. Liab. Litig., 474 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (N.D. Fla. 2020)
2. In re 3M Combat Arms Earplug Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 3:19MD2885, 2020 WL 4756326 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2020)
3. Mike Hughlett, First Trial Starts This Week in Massive 3M Earplugs Litigation, Star Tribune (March 28, 2021)
4. Emily Field and Cara Salvatore, What To Watch As Trial Starts In Massive 3M Earplug MDL, Law360 (March 26, 2021)
5. Prepare for a presentation on the 3M combat arms earplug litigation by Beth Middleton Burke, Member at Rogers, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman LLC

Class 39

1. Prepare for a discussion on the 3M combat arms earplug litigation and on products liability generally with Beth Middleton Burke, Member at Rogers, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman LLC