Products Liability

From NewlyPossible.org

Welcome to Products Liability!

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

Products Liability Generally

Class 01 (Thursday, January 7)

Class 02 (Monday, January 11)

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

Class 03 (Tuesday, January 12)

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

Development of Strict Products Liability

Class 04 (Thursday, January 14)

  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 (Tuesday, January 19)

  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 (Thursday, January 21)

  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 (Monday, January 25)

  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 (Tuesday, January 26)

  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 (Thursday, January 28)

  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 (Monday, February 1)

  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 (Tuesday, February 2)

  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 (Monday, February 8)

  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 (Tuesday, February 9)

  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 (Thursday, February 11)

  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 (Monday, February 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 (Tuesday, February 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 (Thursday, February 18)

  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 (Monday, February 22)

  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 (Thursday, February 25)

  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 (Monday, March 1)

  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 (Tuesday, March 2)

  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 (Thursday, March 4)

  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 (Monday, March 8)

  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 (Tuesday, March 9)

  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 (Thursday, March 11)

  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 (Monday, March 15)

  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 (Tuesday, March 16)

  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 (Thursday, March 17)

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

Class 29 (Monday, March 22)

  1. TBA

Class 30 (Tuesday, March 23)

  1. TBA

Damages

Class 31 (Thursday, March 25)

  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)
Retrieved from "https://newlypossible.org/w/index.php?title=Products_Liability&oldid=1072"