The Continuing Search for Proper Perspective: Whose Reasonableness Should be at Issue in a Prescription Product Design Defect Analysis?
Richard L. Cupp Jr.
Pepperdine University School of Law
Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 30, 1999
This article addresses standards for analyzing alleged design defects in prescription products. It contrasts the Restatement of Torts (Third): Products Liability’s approach -- no design liability attaches if a reasonable healthcare provider would prescribe the product to any class of patients -- with a reasonable manufacturer approach.
The article reviews judicial decisions addressing prescription product design liability, and concludes that the case law supports a reasonable manufacturer approach over the Restatement (Third)’s approach. The article argues that in most instances both approaches will lead to the same result, and that design liability will be rare under either approach, but that the reasonable manufacturer test is superior to the Restatement (Third)’s reasonable healthcare test.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 25
Keywords: tort, Restatement, products liability, prescription, drug, medication, pharmaceutical, design defect, reasonable, manufacturer, healthcareAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: April 2, 2010
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.204 seconds