Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Product liability
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=====Nationwide adoption of product liability===== In turn, Prosser was able to propagate the ''Greenman'' holding to a nationwide audience because the American Law Institute had appointed him as the official reporter of the [[Restatement of Torts, Second]].<ref name="Kiely" /> The Institute approved the Restatement's final draft in 1964 and published it in 1965; the Restatement codified the ''Greenman'' doctrine in Section 402A.<ref name="Kiely" /><ref name="HowellsPage_207" /> ''Greenman'' and Section 402A "spread like wildfire across America".<ref name="HowellsPage_208">{{cite book |last1=Howells |first1=Geraint |last2=Owen |first2=David G. |editor1-last=Howells |editor1-first=Geraint |editor2-last=Ramsay |editor2-first=Iain |editor3-last=Wilhelmsson |editor3-first=Thomas |title=Handbook of Research on International Consumer Law |date=2018 |publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing |location=Cheltenham |pages=202β230 |edition=2nd |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=codlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA208 |access-date=31 May 2020 |chapter=Products liability law in America and Europe|isbn=9781785368219 }}</ref> The [[state supreme court|highest courts]] of nearly all U.S. states and territories (and a few [[State legislature (United States)|state legislatures]]) embraced this "bold new doctrine" during the late 1960s and 1970s.<ref name="Owen" /> As of 2018, the five exceptions who have rejected strict liability are Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, and Virginia.<ref name="HowellsPage_208" /> In four of those states, warranty law has been so broadly construed in favor of plaintiffs that only North Carolina truly lacks anything resembling strict liability in tort for defective products.<ref name="Graham">{{cite journal |last1=Graham |first1=Kyle |title=Strict Products Liability at 50: Four Histories |journal=Marquette Law Review |date=2014 |volume=98 |issue=2 |pages=555β624 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.2385731|url=https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1863&context=facpubs |url-access=subscription }}</ref> (North Carolina's judiciary never attempted to adopt the doctrine, and the state legislature enacted a statute expressly banning strict liability for defective products in 1995.<ref name="Graham" /><ref>[https://www.ncleg.gov/enactedlegislation/statutes/pdf/bysection/chapter_99b/gs_99b-1.1.pdf N.C. Gen. Stat. Β§ 99B-1.1] (1995).</ref>) In a landmark 1986 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court also embraced strict liability for defective products by adopting it as part of [[United States admiralty law|federal admiralty law]].<ref>''[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/858/ East River S. S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc.]'', {{ussc|476|858|1986}}.</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)