Products Liability

Welcome to Products Liability!

I strongly 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, (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

The 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)

The Scope 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]

Manufacturing Defects

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]

Design Defects

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]