Editing Product liability (section)

=====Factors behind nationwide adoption=====

In the conventional narrative, there are two main factors that explain the rapid embrace of ''Greenman'' and Section 402A.<ref name="Graham" />  First, they came along just as Americans were coalescing around a consensus in favor of [[consumer protection]], which would eventually cause Congress to enact several landmark federal product safety and vehicle safety statutes.<ref name="Graham" /><ref name="Stapleton_Page30">{{cite book |last1=Stapleton |first1=Jane |title=Product Liability |date=1994 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=9780406035035 |page=30 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ohxyzSM76n8C&pg=PA30|author-link1=Jane Stapleton}}</ref> Between 1960 and 1977, Congress passed at least forty-two laws dealing with consumer and worker safety.<ref name="Cohen">{{cite book |last1=Cohen |first1=Lizabeth |title=A Consumers' Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America |date=2008 |publisher=Alfred A. Knopf |location=New York |isbn=9780307555366 |page=360 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YuZPy6JqutIC&pg=PA360 |access-date=29 August 2020}}</ref>  Second, American academic experts in the field of [[law and economics]] developed new theories that helped to justify strict liability, such as those articulated by [[Guido Calabresi]] in ''[[The Costs of Accidents]]'' (1970).<ref name="Graham" /><ref name="Stapleton_Page30" /><ref name="Vandall_Page36">{{cite book|last1=Vandall|first1=Frank J.|title=A History of Civil Litigation: Political and Economic Perspectives|date=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=9780199781096|pages=36–37|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vw9pAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA36}}</ref><ref name="Hackney_Page111">{{cite book |last1=Hackney |first1=James R. Jr. |title=Under Cover of Science: American Legal-Economic Theory and the Quest for Objectivity |date=2007 |publisher=Duke University Press |location=Durham |isbn=9780822339984 |page=111 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4Sanltafb6MC&pg=PA111}}</ref>

To this, Kyle Graham adds three more factors: (3) the rise of attorneys specializing exclusively in plaintiffs' personal injury cases and their professional associations like the organization now known as the [[American Association for Justice]]; (4) the ubiquity of so-called "bottle cases" (personal injury cases arising from broken [[glass bottle]]s) before [[aluminum can]]s and [[plastic bottle]]s displaced glass bottles as the primary beverage container during the 1970s; and (5) the resistance of the [[Uniform Commercial Code]]'s editorial board to extending warranties to bystander victims before 1966—in states whose legislatures had not already acted, state courts were more receptive to extending the common law to grant bystanders a strict liability tort claim.<ref name="Graham" />

Prosser inexplicably imposed in Section 402A a requirement that a product defect must be "unreasonably dangerous."<ref name="Heafey1">{{cite book |last1=Heafey |first1=Richard J. |last2=Kennedy |first2=Don M. |date=2006 |publisher=Law Journal Press |location=New York |isbn=1-58852-067-6 |pages=2–9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qlFR0B05q0EC&pg=SA2-PA9|title=Product Liability: Winning Strategies and Techniques}}</ref><ref name="Vandall_Page31">{{cite book|last1=Vandall|first1=Frank J.|title=A History of Civil Litigation: Political and Economic Perspectives|date=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=9780199781096|pages=31–32|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vw9pAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA31}}</ref> Since the "unreasonably dangerous" qualifier implicitly connotes some sense of the idea of "fault" which Traynor was trying to exorcise from product liability,<ref name="Vandall_Page31" /> it was subsequently rejected as incompatible with strict liability for defective products by Alaska, California, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico and West Virginia.<ref name="Heafey1" />