Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1885725
 
 

Footnotes (133)



 


 



The Unappreciated Congruity of the Second and Third Restatements on Design Defects


Michael D. Green


Wake Forest University - School of Law

2009

Brooklyn Law Review , Vol. 74, No. 807, 2009

Abstract:     
There was much criticism of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability for its backtracking after decades of strict products liability, spurred by § 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts. This article delves into what the founders - Prosser, Keeton, Traynor, Wade, and others - intended in adopting liability without fault when a product was defective. It concludes that the combination of negligence and § 402A are equivalent to the Third Restatement, especially when one recognizes that § 3 of the Third Restatement captures what the founders intended with their defectiveness standard. In the course of this inquiry, the article takes strong issue with George Priest's claim that § 402A was only meant to address manufacturing defects.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 31

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: July 15, 2011  

Suggested Citation

Green, Michael D., The Unappreciated Congruity of the Second and Third Restatements on Design Defects (2009). Brooklyn Law Review , Vol. 74, No. 807, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1885725

Contact Information

Michael D. Green (Contact Author)
Wake Forest University - School of Law ( email )
P.O. Box 7206
Winston-Salem, NC 27109
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 285
Downloads: 34
Footnotes:  133

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.406 seconds