The Unappreciated Congruity of the Second and Third Restatements on Design Defects
Michael D. Green
Wake Forest University - School of Law
Brooklyn Law Review , Vol. 74, No. 807, 2009
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: 31Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: July 15, 2011
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.407 seconds