In this article, Professor Steenson continues the discussion that began in The Anatomy of Products Liability in Minnesota: The Theories of Recovery, appearing in the last Issue of the William Mitchell Law Review, by shifting the analytical focus to the problems involved in allocating awards among the parties in Minnesota products liability cases. Professor Steenson analyzes defenses, contribution and indemnity, and the impact of Minnesota\u27s comparative fault act on products liability law
This Article examines the right to recover damages for emotional distress in Minnesota, with emphasi...
The purpose of this article is to provide a foundation for judges and lawyers, primarily in Minnesot...
The idea for this William Mitchell Law Review Symposium on products liability law belongs to Ken Ros...
In this article, Professor Steenson continues the discussion that began in The Anatomy of Products L...
This Article compares the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability with Minnesota products l...
The law of products Iiability has undergone a dramatic evolution since MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co....
The Minnesota No-Fault Act has undergone substantial change since its enactment in 1974. Recent legi...
This article seeks to serve the needs of the Montana bench and bar by addressing the issues likely t...
The Minnesota law of products liability underwent significant changes in the 1980s. The courts fille...
In Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories the Supreme Court of California created the market share liability...
The 2003 amendment to Minnesota’s Comparative Act can be assessed in various ways. Whether it will h...
This article draws out the products liability debate and the push for settlements over litigation in...
This Article examines the market share liability theory to determine whether it can achieve the obje...
This article does not purport to be exhaustive. It does explore the extent to which classical defens...
The author discusses and compares the various theories of recovery available in a product liability ...
This Article examines the right to recover damages for emotional distress in Minnesota, with emphasi...
The purpose of this article is to provide a foundation for judges and lawyers, primarily in Minnesot...
The idea for this William Mitchell Law Review Symposium on products liability law belongs to Ken Ros...
In this article, Professor Steenson continues the discussion that began in The Anatomy of Products L...
This Article compares the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability with Minnesota products l...
The law of products Iiability has undergone a dramatic evolution since MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co....
The Minnesota No-Fault Act has undergone substantial change since its enactment in 1974. Recent legi...
This article seeks to serve the needs of the Montana bench and bar by addressing the issues likely t...
The Minnesota law of products liability underwent significant changes in the 1980s. The courts fille...
In Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories the Supreme Court of California created the market share liability...
The 2003 amendment to Minnesota’s Comparative Act can be assessed in various ways. Whether it will h...
This article draws out the products liability debate and the push for settlements over litigation in...
This Article examines the market share liability theory to determine whether it can achieve the obje...
This article does not purport to be exhaustive. It does explore the extent to which classical defens...
The author discusses and compares the various theories of recovery available in a product liability ...
This Article examines the right to recover damages for emotional distress in Minnesota, with emphasi...
The purpose of this article is to provide a foundation for judges and lawyers, primarily in Minnesot...
The idea for this William Mitchell Law Review Symposium on products liability law belongs to Ken Ros...