Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Will the CT Supreme Court Reinvent Design Defect Law?
Editor's Note: Last month, the authors noted with dismay the fact that the Connecticut Supreme Court is currently considering whether the state should abandon its traditional strict product liability standard for design defect claims and replace it with section 2(b) of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which requires plaintiffs to prove the manufacturer's foreseeability of harm, and prove the effectiveness of a reasonable alternative design in order to recover damages for product-caused injuries. See Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc. (FEDB-CV-060001768-S (Connecticut Supreme Court docket for Bifolck); see also Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability § 2(b) (Am. Law Inst.). They conclude their discussion herein.
Fifty Years of Design Defect Jurisprudence Dismantled?
The test proposed in section 2(b) requires the court to sever design defect claims from their strict product liability roots, cut ties with the public policy supporting its holding in Potter (Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 241 Conn. 199 (1997)), and rebalance protection of the innocent consumer with the financial interests of manufacturers. Section 2(b) adopts principles of negligence for design defect claims. Comments to this section explain that the test “for products that are defectively designed or sold … achieve[s] the same general objectives as does liability predicated on negligence.” See Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability § 3 cmt. a. In addition, there is the requirement that a plaintiff must prove a reasonable alternative design, and its effectiveness.
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.
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?