Footnotes (104)



The Value of Consumer Choice in Products Liability

Mark Geistfeld

New York University School of Law

April 28, 2009

Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 74, No. 3, 2010
NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 09-25
NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 09-20

Tort law has always recognized the principle expressed by the Latin maxim volenti non fit injuria, or "a person is not wronged by that to which he or she consents." The absence of consent is part of the prima facie case for tort liability, distinguishing tortious behavior from socially acceptable behavior. Nevertheless, the value of consumer choice in strict products liability is surprisingly unclear. Consider the liability rules governing defects of product design or warning, the most important categories of product defect. According to the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, "[t]he emphasis is on creating incentives for manufacturers to achieve optimal levels of safety in designing and marketing products." The optimal level of safety has no apparent connection to the amount of safety that would be chosen by consumers, because "consumer expectations do not play a determinative role in determining defectiveness." Whether a product is defective in these cases instead depends on "[a] broad range of factors," including "the nature and strength of consumer expectations regarding the product." In some cases, consumer expectations can be "ultimately determinative" of the liability question, but it is not apparent why the liability rules exclusively rely on consumer choice in only these cases but not others. Consumer choice could also limit liability under the assumed-risk rule, and yet assumption of risk is not an independent defense in products liability, deepening the impression that this body of tort law undervalues individual choice.

The impression is misleading. Strict products liability appropriately values consumer choice. The value of consumer choice, however, is obscured by the way in which the Restatement (Third) has de-emphasized the importance of consumer expectations. Properly understood, the value of consumer choice not only justifies the liability rules in the Restatement (Third), it also provides the key to understanding the important limitations of strict products liability, including those based on assumed risks.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 26

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: April 29, 2009  

Suggested Citation

Geistfeld, Mark, The Value of Consumer Choice in Products Liability (April 28, 2009). Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 74, No. 3, 2010; NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 09-25; NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 09-20. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1396377

Contact Information

Mark Geistfeld (Contact Author)
New York University School of Law ( email )
40 Washington Square South
Room 411A
New York, NY 10012-1099
United States
212-998-6683 (Phone)

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,471
Downloads: 179
Download Rank: 133,159
Footnotes:  104
People who downloaded this paper also downloaded:
1. Consumer Protection - Problems and Prospects
By Sheetal Sahoo and Aman Chatterjee