Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Product Warnings Litigation: Fixing What's Wrong
A law review article by professors Aaron D. Twerski and James A. Henderson Jr. merits serious attention by the bench and litigation bar. Provocatively titled “Fixing Failure to Warn,” the article once again reveals serious ills in the current system of warnings litigation. The authors provide a logical, simple “fix” that is analogous to a widely accepted construct in product design litigation. (Twerski and Henderson, “Fixing Failure to Warn,” 90 Ind. L. J. vol. 1 Fall (2014).) They suggest that, just as a claimant alleging a defective product design must prove the practicable feasibility of defendant incorporating a safer “reasonable alternative design” (RAD), so too, a claimant urging a product's inadequate warning should have to prove a safer reasonable alternative warning (RAW).
These noted scholars ' Twerski is a professor of Brooklyn Law School and Henderson is professor emeritus at Cornell Law School ' are no strangers to product liability law, and the legal standards for gauging when designs or warnings are to be considered “defective.” Both were Reporters for the Restatement of Torts, Third: Products Liability, the American Law Institute's prestigious and oft-cited collection of black-letter rules and commentary governing product liability. They also authored the 1990 “Doctrinal Collapse” article in the New York University Law Review about warnings, which, 10 years later, was cited as one of the 25 most influential articles published by the NYU Law Review over the previous 75 years. (Henderson and Twerski, “Doctrinal Collapse in Products Liability: The Empty Shell of Failure to Warn,” 65 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 265 (1990); See “Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Retrospective: Most Influential Articles,” 75 N.Y.U. L. Rev' 1517, 1558 (2000).) There, the authors unmasked major shortcomings in how courts handled warning litigation. Prior to surveying some highlights of Twerski and Henderson's brand-new proposal to “fix” the law of warnings, a review of some of the major problems would be appropriate.
Failure to Warn
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.