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

29 Pages Posted: 24 Mar 2010 Last revised: 26 Apr 2010

See all articles by John C. P. Goldberg

John C. P. Goldberg

Harvard Law School

Benjamin C. Zipursky

Fordham University School of Law

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

Goldberg, John C. P. and Zipursky, Benjamin C., The Easy Case for Products Liability: A Response to Professors Polinsky and Shavell. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 123, Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1577653, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1577653

John C. P. Goldberg (Contact Author)

Harvard Law School ( email )

Areeda 232
1545 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States
617-496-2086 (Phone)

Benjamin C. Zipursky

Fordham University School of Law ( email )

140 West 62nd Street
New York, NY 10023
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
481
Abstract Views
3,993
Rank
108,962
PlumX Metrics