Add to ORKGProduct liability has evolved from a combination of contract and tort theories. Under current contract analysis a manufacturer is liable for injuries resulting from a product which is unmerchantable, while under strict liability in tort a manufacturer is liable for injuries resulting from a product which is defective.” The majority of legal scholars and jurisdictions have found that in the area of personal injury these two underlying tests are synonymous. This means, in effect, that all products found unmerchantable should also be found defective, and vice versa
This Note argues that if a seller and a commercial buyer are in privity, damage to a product resulti...
One of the reasons for the current unhappy state of tort law generally—and of products liability law...
When a manufactured article fails to meet the reasonable expectations of the purchaser-user and in c...
Product liability has evolved from a combination of contract and tort theories. Under current contra...
An unusual type of products liability case raises the issue of whether an injured consumer can recov...
In the products liability area the pendulum has now swung back to the imposition of strict liability...
In Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co. the Washington plaintiff brought suit against the manufacturer of an auto...
Much has been said about the liability of a manufacturer to a sub-purchaser for injuries caused by h...
This article examines the relationship between two concepts found throughout the law of products lia...
The primary emphasis of this article will be on the application of proximate cause in strict liabili...
Plaintiff sustained injuries in the course of his employment when a defective abrasive wheel, while ...
The authors consider the question of whether warranty law in Maryland now provides the plaintiff in ...
Strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities is entirely different from strict products liability...
The twenty years since the introduction of the concept of strict products Liability have been marked...
The assault upon the citadel, having proceeded apace for 35 years, has achieved spectacular victory....
This Note argues that if a seller and a commercial buyer are in privity, damage to a product resulti...
One of the reasons for the current unhappy state of tort law generally—and of products liability law...
When a manufactured article fails to meet the reasonable expectations of the purchaser-user and in c...
Product liability has evolved from a combination of contract and tort theories. Under current contra...
An unusual type of products liability case raises the issue of whether an injured consumer can recov...
In the products liability area the pendulum has now swung back to the imposition of strict liability...
In Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co. the Washington plaintiff brought suit against the manufacturer of an auto...
Much has been said about the liability of a manufacturer to a sub-purchaser for injuries caused by h...
This article examines the relationship between two concepts found throughout the law of products lia...
The primary emphasis of this article will be on the application of proximate cause in strict liabili...
Plaintiff sustained injuries in the course of his employment when a defective abrasive wheel, while ...
The authors consider the question of whether warranty law in Maryland now provides the plaintiff in ...
Strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities is entirely different from strict products liability...
The twenty years since the introduction of the concept of strict products Liability have been marked...
The assault upon the citadel, having proceeded apace for 35 years, has achieved spectacular victory....
This Note argues that if a seller and a commercial buyer are in privity, damage to a product resulti...
One of the reasons for the current unhappy state of tort law generally—and of products liability law...
When a manufactured article fails to meet the reasonable expectations of the purchaser-user and in c...