Talk:Product liability

message: added basic rationale of strict liability. tried to balance the argument, which was one-sided in favor of negligence. there is a sensible reason almost all jurisdictions have moved to strict liability. --Rmalloy 23:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

message: Some anonymous editor (probably not a lawyer) tried to change the summary of Jimenez to refer to personal property instead of real property. That is incorrect.  Jimenez did extend strict liability to products installed as fixtures on real property.  --Coolcaesar 17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimenez is about extension of strict liability to fixtures 

message: The biggest problem is that design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn are discussed under negligence.  The Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability, does mention those categories, but focuses on them separately and apart from the labels of strict liability and negligence.  The confusing relationship between strict liability/negligence (that is, the underlying traditional causes of action) versus the more recent development of these three types of product defects as developed in the case law (particularly in California) needs to be better explained in this article.  I would do it myself but I'm way too busy with depositions and motion practice.  I'm sure there must be some other Wikipedia editor out there in law school who can get a hold of the Restatement Third and straighten this article out!  --Coolcaesar 23:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: Why is there no mention of Cardozo and his contributions to product liability theory (such as in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.)?  This article could use some revision in that regard. --Eastlaw (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section is weak 

message: Starting to think about a cleanup of this article. What is the problem with this section? It could do with a copyedit but it looks balanced to me. Couldn't see any weasel words. Can somebody be more explicit? Cutler (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for and debate over strict liability - weasel words 

message: I think the best structure for a cleaned up article would be:
*Head para
*Theory (Taschner is a good ref here )
**Allocation of costs
**Strict v. fault-based
**Development risks defence/ State of the art defense
*History
**Winterbottom v. Wright
**MacPherson v. Buick
**Donaghue v. Stevenson
**Grant v. Australian Knitting
**US developments up to 2nd Restatement of Torts
**Pearson commission
**EU Directive 85/374/EC
**Further US developments
**Sytems derived from US and EU: Switzerland, Australia, Japan (hemispheric bias solved!)
**...
*US law
*EU law
*Australian law
*Japanese law
*References
*Bibliography
— er that's it. Cutler (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add some discussion about the academic controversy over the area.  Philipson/Sun/Goldman argue that current product liability law is inefficient and raises prices without improving safety. THF (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I know that additional insured clauses are a common provision in construction contracts between general contractors and subs, but I've never heard of a manufacturer or distributor putting downstream distributors and retailers as additional insureds on its CGL.  I've seen lots of reported cases where insurers of construction contractors fight over which insurer has which contractor as an additional insured, but I've never seen insurers of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers doing the same thing.  If someone doesn't provide a source for that, I'm deleting the whole section soon.  It smells suspiciously of original research.--Coolcaesar (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, no one's defending that garbage, out the door it goes.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insurance section smells fishy 

message: My practice does not involve insurance law but I am reasonably familiar with it. I know that some of the things in this section are correct. My knowledge simply doesn't extend to the rest of it but the author certainly appears to know what s/he is talking about. I was led here by this article Additional insured which I found to be informative. It was written by the same author.
This most certainly isn't "laughably incorrect garbage", although I agree that it is unsourced. That's what those "citation needed tags" are for. I'll try to find out how to put one in to save you the trouble.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustPassingThrough123 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just ran the search on Google Books because that section still smells fishy.  It's also not written very well and appears to have been drafted by either a nonlawyer, a paralegal, or a lawyer in one of those jurisdictions where anyone who can sign his name can pass the bar exam.  As I suspected, there are LOTS of sources talking about the obligation of a subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor, but nothing talking about an upstream manufacturer's obligation to indemnify downstream distributors and retailers.  I'm pulling that section until someone can provide a citation to a reliable source.  See core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insurance and Indemnification section 

message: Dr. Daughety has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Daughety has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 2011. "Cumulative Harm and Resilient Liability Rules for Product Markets," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 1125, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Daughety's comment on this article 

message: In my opinion, the section, Rationale for and debate over strict liability should be moved to Strict liability.
I think the geographic subsections should also be reorganized to make the article less U.S.-specific, and to avoid the need to refer to the U.S. section to understand the E.U. material. Arllaw (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strict Liability & Geographic Subsections 

message: For this edit by IP , I believe the material added is correct, but it would be nice if it was sourced.  Perhaps it is sufficiently covered in the text below it that it needs no source.  --David Tornheim (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be sourced, and should be updated to reflect the changes in product liability law that have been implemented since the 1990's. Arllaw (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  strict liability vs. negligence 

message: I noticed that an unregistered user added a POV tag to the article, questioning its neutrality. Any thoughts? Arllaw (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been almost a year since the tag has been discussed, and only by Arllaw to ask why it's there. I think it can go. 66.76.174.166 (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral POV 

message: User:L.tak just tried to take out the word "boldly."  That word is entirely appropriate because it followed in logical sequence after a discussion which explained how many courts were conservative and chicken for many years.  Then Roger Traynor came along and turned the world upside down.  Unfortunately, as I have previously pointed out, another editor was foolish enough to butcher that historical discussion (in a way that borders on vandalism) so that what was a logical, lucid discussion of the evolution of product liability law no longer makes much sense. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I removed it had nothing to do with any of the issues regarding this article (we share the concerns, but don't agree on the way forward). The reason for removing the word "boldly" is that it is by definition opinionated. One could also argue that a justice simply applies/shapes the law in the way he/she deems appropriate. Whether it is boldness, or "sense of duty"  (or even: activism) is an evaluation which by definition is thus a neutral fact... Do you have an alternative that addresses my concern regarding this word? L.tak (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion the article includes some content and language within the article that falls within the realm of opinion and editorializing and should be cleaned up, and certainly there is need to add reliable sources to the debate section, but I don't presently have the time or inclination to try to clean up this article if the process is likely to trigger controversy. If any editor or editors want to take the lead, I will try to participate in any associated discussion. Arllaw (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another reason why this article needs to be reverted back to the last good version 

message: Now the article finally has a good treatment of the evolution of Anglo-American common law on this issue. Next, I need to find the time over the next month or so to finish summarizing the story as to the international evolution of product liability law in response to Greenman.  The Reimann article (see above) does a good job of summarizing most of the key data points.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that User:L.tak removed neutral paragraphs which quoted extensively from and were fully cited and linked to Reimann's 2003 journal article and 2015 book chapter.  Those are verifiable, reliable sources written by an comparative law expert who obtained his doctorate in law at the University of Freiburg, became a tenured professor of law at Michigan Law, and has been publishing books and articles on comparative law on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean for 30 years.  Unless I see a reasoned explanation in the next couple of days for why those paragraphs are not an accurate explanation of why product liability litigation is so much rarer in Europe, I'm reinserting those paragraphs. And if there is a counterargument to Reimann's assessment to be made by citation to reliable sources, then the correct approach is to summarize each side in a neutral fashion (as I just did for Reimann v. Howells/Owen on the issue of the real world impact of the Restatement Third treatment of design and warning defects).  --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I restored it.  It appears to be a helpful addition to me. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finally started rewriting this mess 

message: H8 2405:201:E00A:2FC:98F6:4A49:C30C:A978 (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wap 4