Category Archives: Products liability
Almada and Petit, ‘The EU AI Act: Between the Rock of Product Safety and the Hard Place of Fundamental Rights’
ABSTRACT The European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act (the AI Act) sets out a hybrid regulatory framework. The AI Act combines two classic traditions of EU law, namely product safety and fundamental rights protection. However, the proposed combination can fail if it does not account for the structural differences between the two legal traditions. This […]
Twigg-Flesner and Howells, ‘Adapting Consumer Law to New Technologies’
ABSTRACT The task for this chapter is to examine how well consumer law is able to adapt to the use of new technologies in consumer-focused applications. Our central thesis is that a methodical approach is needed, comprising several steps and admitting different responses to different technological developments. The context for our discussion will be applications […]
Duncan Wallace, ‘The Reality of Shareholder Ownership: For-profit Corporations as Slaves’
ABSTRACT What is the relationship between shareholders and the corporation? The present scholarly consensus is that, whatever the relationship is, it is not one of owner and owned. This article contests that consensus. It argues that corporations are owned by their shareholders and, further, that corporations so-owned are slaves. In support of this contention, the […]
Omri Ben-Shahar, ‘Safety Score Liability’
ABSTRACT Data technology is increasingly deployed to assign safety scores to people and products. Could these scores be used by tort law to apportion liability for accidents? Instead of basing tort liability on negligence – on the level of care leading to the specific accident – ‘safety score liability’ would impose liability commensurate with a […]
Ethan Schwab, ‘How Safe Is Safe Enough? Analyzing the Incentive Structure of the Products Liability Scheme on Commercial Aviation Manufacturers’
ABSTRACT How do aviation manufacturers work to prevent tragedy? After tragedy strikes, how does the legal system’s imposition of a remedy change the operations and decision-making of these manufacturers, if at all? This Note explores whether the current products liability framework effectively achieves the goals of tort law – including whether it deters unsafe innovation […]
Silvie Rohr, ‘Corporate Purpose: A Management Concept and the Role of Contract Design’
ABSTRACT In light of systemic crises such as global warming and human rights violations in business operations, the call for reevaluating corporate conduct has become more pressing than ever. As these challenges intensify, a growing consensus advocates for a shift away from shareholder profit maximization towards a more holistic stakeholder governance model. Yet, the question […]
Susanna Kim Ripken, ‘Corporate Civil Disobedience’
ABSTRACT Classic theories of civil disobedience endorse the right of individuals to commit illegal acts to protest unjust laws and policies. Acts of civil disobedience have historically played a central role in exposing injustice and producing vital legal and social change. The literature on civil disobedience is vast; political and legal theorists have long recognized […]
Oz Shy, ‘Whistleblowers and Product Safety’
ABSTRACT I analyze the economic value of whistleblowers for product safety. Only workers can observe cost-cutting production processes that increase the likelihood of defective products that inflict damage to the buyer. The possible emergence of whistleblowers incentivize the manufacturer to avoid cost-cutting production if the regulator reacts and forces the manufacturer to reproduce. This incentive […]
Asaf Lubin, ‘On Software Bugs and Legal Bugs: Product Liability in the Age of Code’
ABSTRACT Despite software’s ubiquity in modern life, its classification within product liability law remains unsettled. Is software a product, a service, a good, a component, a medium, a force, or something else altogether? Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts a product is defined as a ‘tangible personal property distributed commercially for use or consumption’. But […]
‘Preempting Toxic Torts: Third Circuit Opens Split on Cancer Warnings in Schaffner v Monsanto’
Pesticides can cause cancer. For that reason, they have long been the subject of state regulation. However, pesticide manufacturers like Monsanto Company have attempted to utilize the preemption doctrine to avoid liability for their carcinogenic products. After its arguments were unsuccessful in the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, Monsanto’s claim that a federal pesticide regulation preempted […]