Strict Liability for Defective Ideas in Publications

In 1963 the Supreme Court of California revolutionized the law of torts by adopting the theory of strict liability in products liability cases.\u27 The American Law Institute subsequently promulgated section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in 1965. Section 402A provides that the seller of a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous may be held liable even though he has exercised all possible care. \u27 Today, nearly every state has adopted some form of section 402A.\u27 Moreover, the list of modern products to which section 402A applies is virtually limitless. Yet, despite the unprecedented expansion of strict liability into new product areas and industries, courts still must grapple with defining the limits of section 402A in certain unique factual situations. The increasing variety and complexity of manufactured items have created problems for courts;6 some items do not fall neatly within the label of product. Recently, courts have had to decide whether the content of an article of property used to transmit information constitutes a product for section 402A purposes. Some courts have applied strict liability to publications that contain erroneous information which has caused injury to plaintiffs.\u27 These courts argue that the underlying policy justifications for strict liability compel this application.\u27 Other courts have refused to extend the doctrine of strict liability to cover defective ideas and words in a publication. These courts contend that strict liability only applies to the tangible properties of publications, not the words and thoughts contained within the publication. Because the physical properties of a book contain no inherent danger, strict liability arguably is not applicable. This Note explores the issue of whether strict liability is appropriate for defective ideas in publications. Part II examines the development of strict liability and the underlying policy justifications for the doctrine. Part III analyzes cases that have considered the applicability of strict liability to various publications. Part IV examines the implications of imposing strict liability on publications. Finally, Part V concludes that strict liability should not be applied to publications that contain defective ideas

Liability of Manufacturer for Goods under The Consumer Protection Act 1999: A Paradigm Shift

The era of globalization and trade liberalization illustrates the emergence of opportunities and challenges. Liberalization of trade opens up economy and creates borderless world. It exposes nations to competitive market forces whereby manufacturers are free to market the goods produced to every part of the world. Open economy exposes consumer with defective goods on the market. This phenomenon shows that consumers are victimized by the process of trade liberalization which raises the question of manufacturers’ liability for defective goods under the domestic law. Normally consumers are prevented from making a claim against the manufacturer due to the application of the doctrine of privity of contract under  the contract of supply of goods in Malaysia. However, Part VII of the Malaysian Consumer Protection Act 1999 has introduced a new contractual liability on the manufacturer whereby consumers are given the right to make a claim against the manufacturer. The study is a doctrinal study which uses content analysis method which purports to analyze Part VII of the Act in providing protection to consumers. The analysis reveals the weaknesses of Part VII in ensuring proper protection for consumers in Malaysia. Keywords: consumer, manufacturer, doctrine of privity of contract, Consumer Protection Act 1999 (Malaysia

The Strict Liability in Fault and the Fault in Strict Liability

Tort scholars have long been obsessed with the dichotomy between strict liability and liability based on fault or wrongdoing. We argue that this is a false dichotomy. Torts such as battery, libel, negligence, and nuisance are wrongs, yet all are “strictly” defined in the sense of setting objective and thus quite demanding standards of conduct. We explain this basic insight under the heading of “the strict liability in fault.” We then turn to the special case of liability for abnormally dangerous activities, which at times really does involve liability without wrongdoing. Through an examination of this odd corner of tort law, we isolate “the fault in strict liability”—that is, the fault line between the wrongs-based form of strict liability that is frequently an aspect of tort liability and the wrongs-free form of strict liability that is found only within the very narrow domain of liability for abnormally dangerous activities. We conclude by defending these two features of the common law of tort: the strictness of the terms on which it defines wrongdoing and its begrudging willingness to recognize, in one special kind of case, liability without wrongdoing

The relevance of time in framing the sanctions framework for defective disclosure

Sanctions imposed on listed companies in cases of breached disclosure obligations have steadily but rather slowly been moving towards a harmonized approach in EU corporate law. Without compromising the potential efficiency of these harmonisation measures, this article aims to propose an alternative method to increase the efficiency of sanctions. By focusing on the importance of time as an element that influences corporate decisions in relation to the breach of disclosure obligations, this article seeks to re-frame the importance of sanctions and to link their severity to the element of time that is potentially instrumentalised by listed companies. This study argues that by linking sanctions and time, the legal framework would be likely to apply more severe sanctions, while adopting differentiated sanctions depending on which disclosure obligations are breached. This new approach aims to trigger a de facto harmonisation trend amongst regulators and judges at the national and EU levels

The Easy Case for Products Liability: A Response to Polinsky & Shavell

In their article “The Uneasy Case for Product Liability,” Professors Polinsky and Shavell assert the extraordinary claim that there should be no tort liability - none at all - for injuries caused by widely-sold products. In particular, they claim to have found convincing evidence that the threat of tort liability creates no additional incentives to safety beyond those already provided by regulatory agencies and market forces, and that tort compensation adds little or no benefit to injury victims beyond the compensation already provided by various forms of insurance. In this response, we explain that, even on its own narrow terms, “Uneasy,” comes nowhere near to demonstrating what it purports to demonstrate. We also identify various “benefits” provided by tort liability for product-related injuries that Polinsky and Shavell entirely fail to consider. In fact, the case for some form of products liability - whether fault-based or defect-based - is really quite easy