A Modest Proposal: Abolish Strict Liability

As I prepare to leave for Las Vegas to attend the annual DRI Products Liability Conference, I have been thinking about the current state of products liability law in the United States. As everyone knows, our current products liability law consists of separate laws – including a myriad of statutes, codes and case law – in every state, some of which conflict and some of which overlap, supplemented by various federal laws, rules and regulations. As a result of this conflicting system, U.S. products manufacturers face increasingly complex and expensive litigation which has expanded exponentially over the years. With a couple of possible exceptions, one would be hard-pressed to find an area of litigation that has become more expensive than products liability.

There is also no question that manufacturers who produce products for use in the United States are the most regulated, legislated and litigated industry in the world. The question is whether there is too much regulation and litigation and, if so, what can and/or should be done to ease this burden so as to ensure that U.S. products manufacturers can compete in the global economy. It is obvious that relief is needed. We have all read the news and it is not good. Jobs are being lost daily, the United States industrial and manufacturing community is shrinking rapidly, if not dying, and products manufacturers face substantial litigation exposure and expense, all of which makes it extremely difficult for them to compete.

This burden needs to be substantially reduced. So what to do? Some would say the answer is to take products liability law out of the hands of the states and place it under the control of the federal government in the name of uniformity and consistency. God forbid that this occur. While allowing states to generally control products law does lead to some problems and inconsistencies, the federal government has done nothing worthwhile in the legislative arena in the last several decades and what it has done generally creates more problems than it solves. The current health care fiasco will, I believe, prove this point conclusively. That legislation will most assuredly lead us down the path of substantially higher health care costs, increased taxes and decreased quality of care. Turning control of the health care system in America over to the likes of Congress, including congressmen who are afraid Guam might tip over, and whoever might be in the White House at any given moment is a terrible idea and allowing it to take over products liability law would be just as bad, if not worse.

Another, and I would submit, much more appropriate remedy is to abolish the doctrine of strict liability. Strict liability laws were introduced at a time when products manufacturers needed regulating. These laws have clearly served their purpose of requiring U.S. manufacturers to make the safest products in the world. That they do so is really without question. To coin a phrase – planes, trains and automobiles – as well as toys, food, electronics, pharmaceutical products, medical devices, you name it – if it is designed and manufactured to be sold here, it is the safest product in the world. However, the doctrine of strict liability is no longer used to ensure reasonable safety; rather, it has gone beyond reasonableness to the point where a degree of “defensive design and manufacturing” akin to the concept of defensive medicine, is required. This has driven up costs, both on the design and manufacturing side as well as the back-end cost of defending litigation involving strict liability claims.

Assuming this to be the case, one answer is to do away with strict liability laws. Would doing so result in manufacturers suddenly abandoning the concept of making safe products? I think not. Would it result in a multitude of defective products being dumped into the marketplace? I think not. Would it result in manufacturers being able to make sensible decisions in designing and manufacturing products without having to worry about the concept of “defensive design and manufacturing,” thus lowering costs? I think so. Would it result in fewer frivolous claims being filed and litigation costs being driven down substantially? I think so. Is this a bad thing? Absolutely not!

Let me hasten to say that I do not believe that manufacturers should be insulated from liability where they are negligent and/or grossly negligent in connection with the design or manufacture of products. If they are negligent and they cause harm, they should pay reasonable actual damages. If they are reckless and consciously indifferent in their conduct, they should be liable for reasonable punitive damages. However, should they be liable after having used all due and reasonable care in the design and manufacturing process simply because some paid expert somewhere says that he or she thinks the product is defective or unreasonably dangerous? It seems to me that the time for that cause of action has come and gone.

As society changes, laws which, when enacted, fulfilled a valid and societal purpose become unnecessary. It is no longer necessary for us to legislate the manufacture and use of buggy whips. Times change, and the need for laws change, as well. Has the time to do away with the concept of strict liability arrived? I think so.

Terms of Use and Disclaimer

YOUR ACCESS AND USE OF THIS BLOG CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS AND CREATES A BINDING LEGAL AGREEMENT. YOU MUST ACCEPT THESE TERMS IF YOU WISH TO USE THE BLOG SITE. NO CHANGES, ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS BY YOU TO THESE TERMS WILL BE ACCEPTED.

These terms may be changed, updated or amended at any time without notice. Any amendments to the terms will be posted on the blog site. You should review these terms each time you use the blog. This blog is published by and reflects the personal views of the Authors and does not represent the views of their law firm, Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A. or any of their clients.

By accessing this blog you understand and agree that no information is being provided in the context of any attorney-client relationship and that nothing is intended to constitute the Authors’ legal advice. This blog is solely informational in nature. It is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed and retained attorney in your state. You should not rely upon the legal accuracy or validity of any of this information. To make informed legal decisions, you should always consult with your own lawyer for your personal legal needs.

This blog is not intended to be attorney advertising, and it does not intend to convey information concerning legal services offered by any Author or law firm. Instead, this blog contains their constitutionally protected personal opinions and views of the Authors. Nothing in this blog should be interpreted as an advertisement of any sort that is not authorized by the laws and regulations of the state or country where you are located. The Authors do not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this blog site in any state or country where to do so would fail to comply with any laws or ethical rules of that state or country.

This blog is protected by the copyright and trademark laws of United States. Downloading of any content does not transfer any right or ownership of such information, content or images to you, and such information, content or images may be used solely in accordance with these terms of use. All copyright and other proprietary notices contained in downloadable materials must be retained. Nothing on this website shall be construed as conferring any license under any intellectual property right, including any right in the nature of trademark or copyright, of the Authors or any third party, whether by estoppel, implication, or otherwise. All trademarks, logos and service marks are the property of their respective owners, and are protected in the United States and in other countries as applicable. Your use or misuse of these trademarks or any other materials is expressly prohibited and may be in violation of the laws of copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity, slander, libel, and communications.

The Authors neither control, endorse, promote nor have any affiliation with any other site to which this blog links, unless expressly stated herein or on such site. The Authors therefore have no responsibility for the content, accuracy or any other aspect of the information contained on such linked sites. You agree that the Authors will not be liable for any damages or injury arising from your access to such sites or content.

THE AUTHORS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES AS TO THE TIMELINESS, AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SITE. LIKE ANY PRINTED MATERIALS, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS SITE MAY BECOME OUTDATED OVER TIME. THE AUTHORS UNDERTAKE NO OBLIGATION TO CORRECT OR UPDATE ANY CONTENT OR INFORMATION ON THIS SITE. THE AUTHORS MAY REVISE THE CONTENT OF THE BLOG AT ANY TIME WITHOUT NOTICE, AND THEY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ALTER OR DELETE CONTENT AND INFORMATION ON THE SITE AT ANY TIME. ALL INFORMATION ON THIS SITE IS PROVIDED “AS IS,” WITHOUT ANY WARRANTIES OF ANY SORT WHATSOEVER, ALL OF WHICH ARE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED.

NEITHER THE AUTHORS, THEIR FIRM, NOR ANYONE ELSE WILL BE LIABLE FOR YOUR USE OF OR RELIANCE ON INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS SITE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE. NEITHER SHALL THE AUTHORS, THEIR FIRM, OR ANYONE ELSE BE LIABLE FOR ANY INJURY OR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ACCESS TO, USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE CONTENT OR MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE, EVEN IF THE AUTHORS ARE INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. APPLICABLE LAW MAY NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU, BUT IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ALL DAMAGES, LOSSES AND CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING FROM OR RELATED TO THIS WEBSITE (WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE) EXCEED THE AMOUNT PAID BY YOU, IF ANY FOR ACCESSING THIS WEBSITE.

The Authors reserve the right to refuse to post comments to the blog for any reason and to delete comments posted to the blog for any reason in the Author’s sole discretion. You agree to refrain from attempting to post comments to the blog that are commercial in nature or that are offensive, vulgar, uncivil, defamatory or otherwise tortious. You also agree to not misrepresent yourself or impersonate anyone in your posts. Anything disclosed or offered to the Authors is provided on a non-confidential basis with no obligation on our part to keep such information secret.

Providing information does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the Authors. By uploading or otherwise providing any information to the Author, whether through this website or otherwise, you hereby grant the Authors, to the extent you retain any rights, the unlimited, perpetual right to reuse, redistribute, modify and create derivative works for any purpose and in any media without compensation.

The laws of the State of South Carolina govern these terms. You expressly agree that exclusive jurisdiction for any claim or dispute arising out of or connected with these terms of use, your use of the web site shall be vested in the Circuit Court for the State of South Carolina in Greenville, South Carolina.

Abnormal Use Mission Statement

Welcome to Abnormal Use, a products liability blog. As with all meaningful enterprises, a blog needs a mission statement. There is no better place for that than a blog’s very first post. We, a group of attorneys working together at Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A. in Greenville, South Carolina, have started this blog in an effort to provide thoughtful and thorough commentary on federal and state products liability litigation. In so doing, we will analyze the latest reported opinions, news, and events relating to this area of practice. This is a broad topic, and we expect there to be a wealth of material to cover.

After reading the ABA Journal‘s December 2009 issue highlighting the Top 100 Legal Blogs, we noticed that there were not many dedicated generally to products liability litigation. Although we know that there are a number of blogs focusing on issues within that area of practice (including Jim Beck’s superb Drug and Medical Device Blog), we felt that there would be a place in the blogosphere for a more general discussion of products liability litigation. Thus, as set forth above, we will provide discussion and commentary in this area. To keep matters lively and interesting, we will occasionally pause to bring you lighter fare, including analysis of intriguing developments in general litigation and perhaps even thoughts on the depiction of products liability in popular culture. Whatever the case, we plan to bring you content you cannot find elsewhere.

We are all lawyers at a defense firm in South Carolina. Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A. is a litigation firm with a sixty year history in Greenville. Spearheading this effort will be myself and partner Stephanie Flynn, two of the leaders of our firm’s products liability team. Writing many posts will be five associates at the firm: Kevin Couch, Jim Dedman, Daniel Eller, Mary Giorgi, and Laura Simons.

As lawyers at a defense firm, we will bring that perspective to our commentary. However, we have enabled comments on our posts and hope to foster an environment where robust commentary will be respected and encouraged. We welcome your thoughts and input in this process.

Finally, because we are lawyers, we must direct you to our disclaimer. We remind you that in no way does this site create an attorney-client relationship and we are not offering legal advice via this medium. That said, we would encourage you to read the full and complete disclaimer.