Editing Product liability (section)

=====Tort reform and the neo-conservative reaction=====

In response to these developments, a [[tort reform]] movement appeared in the 1980s which persuaded many state legislatures to enact various limitations like [[Non-economic damages caps|damage caps]] and [[Statute of repose|statutes of repose]].<ref name="Stapleton_Page33">{{cite book |last1=Stapleton |first1=Jane |title=Product Liability |date=1994 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=9780406035035 |page=33 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ohxyzSM76n8C&pg=PA33}}</ref>  However, the majority of states left untouched the basic rule of strict liability for defective products, and all efforts at the federal level to enact a uniform federal product liability regime were unsuccessful.<ref name="Stapleton_Page33" />

From the mid-1960s onward, state courts struggled for over four decades to develop a coherent test for design defects, either phrased in terms of consumer expectations or whether risks outweigh benefits or both (i.e., a hybrid test in which the first does not apply to defects that are too complex).<ref name="Owen_DesignDefects">{{cite journal |last1=Owen |first1=David G. |title=Design Defects |journal=Missouri Law Review |date=2008 |volume=73 |issue=2 |pages=292–368|url=https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1966&context=law_facpub}}</ref>  Risk-benefit analysis, of course, can be seen as a way of measuring the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct—or in other words, negligence.  A neo-conservative turn among many American courts<ref name="HowellsPage_209">{{cite book |last1=Howells |first1=Geraint |last2=Owen |first2=David G. |editor1-last=Howells |editor1-first=Geraint |editor2-last=Ramsay |editor2-first=Iain |editor3-last=Wilhelmsson |editor3-first=Thomas |title=Handbook of Research on International Consumer Law |date=2018 |publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing |location=Cheltenham |pages=202–230 |edition=2nd |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=codlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA209 |access-date=31 May 2020 |chapter=Products liability law in America and Europe|isbn=9781785368219 }}</ref> and tort scholars during the 1980s led to a recognition that liability in design defect and failure-to-warn cases had never been entirely strict,<ref name="ReimannPage252">{{cite book |last1=Reimann |first1=Mathias |editor1-last=Bussani |editor1-first=Mauro |editor2-last=Sebok |editor2-first=Anthony J. |title=Comparative Tort Law: Global Perspectives |date=2015 |publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing |location=Cheltenham |pages=250–278 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q5FHCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA252 |access-date=1 May 2020 |chapter=Product liability|isbn=9781784718138}}</ref> or had been operating in some respects as a ''de facto'' fault-based regime all along,<ref name="Stapleton_Page33" /> and the American Law Institute expressly backed a return to tests associated with negligence for design and warning defects with the 1998 publication of the ''Restatement of Torts, Third: Products Liability''.<ref name="ReimannPage252" /><ref name="Koenig_Page63">{{cite book |last1=Koenig |first1=Thomas |last2=Rustad |first2=Michael |author-link2=Michael Rustad|title=In Defense of Tort Law |date=2001 |publisher=New York University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780814748992 |page=63 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6FjqlxBifTcC&pg=PA63 |access-date=9 June 2020}}</ref>  This attempt to resurrect negligence and to limit strict liability to its original home in manufacturing defects<ref name="Koenig_Page63" /><ref name="Vandall_Page91">{{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|page=91|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vw9pAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA91}}</ref><ref name="HowellsPage_212">{{cite book |last1=Howells |first1=Geraint |last2=Owen |first2=David G. |editor1-last=Howells |editor1-first=Geraint |editor2-last=Ramsay |editor2-first=Iain |editor3-last=Wilhelmsson |editor3-first=Thomas |title=Handbook of Research on International Consumer Law |date=2018 |publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing |location=Cheltenham |pages=202–230 |edition=2nd |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=codlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA212 |access-date=31 May 2020 |chapter=Products liability law in America and Europe|isbn=9781785368219 }}</ref> "has been highly controversial among courts and scholars."<ref name="ReimannPage253">{{cite book |last1=Reimann |first1=Mathias |editor1-last=Bussani |editor1-first=Mauro |editor2-last=Sebok |editor2-first=Anthony J. |title=Comparative Tort Law: Global Perspectives |date=2015 |publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing |location=Cheltenham |pages=250–278 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q5FHCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA253 |access-date=1 May 2020 |chapter=Product liability|isbn=9781784718138}}</ref> In arguing in 2018 that U.S. product liability law as restated in 1998 had come full circle back to where it started in 1964, two law professors also conceded that "some courts" continue to "tenaciously cling[] to the rationale and doctrine of [Section] 402A."<ref name="HowellsPage_213">{{cite book |last1=Howells |first1=Geraint |last2=Owen |first2=David G. |editor1-last=Howells |editor1-first=Geraint |editor2-last=Ramsay |editor2-first=Iain |editor3-last=Wilhelmsson |editor3-first=Thomas |title=Handbook of Research on International Consumer Law |date=2018 |publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing |location=Cheltenham |pages=202–230 |edition=2nd |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=codlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA213 |access-date=31 May 2020 |chapter=Products liability law in America and Europe|isbn=9781785368219 }}</ref>