Should "Relative Safety" Be a Test of Product Liability?

James Boyd and Daniel E Ingberman

The Journal of Legal Studies, 1997, vol. 26, issue 2, 433-73

Abstract: Case and statutory law often condition liability on the safety of the defendant's product relative to competing products. This article explores the safety and welfare implications of commonly observed "technological advancement: and "customary practice" tests of productive liability. We find that, in general, the technological advancement test yields excessive safety expenditures, while the customary practice test leads to inadequate safety. In addition, we show that characteristics of the law vary across jurisdictions and in ways that can significantly affect the tests' desirability. Two particularly important characteristics are the degree to which the tests are conclusive and whether or not compliance with government standards is used as an external complement to relative safety evidence. Jurisdictions can mitigate the worst tendencies of relative safety tests by not allowing them to be conclusive and by allowing for reference to government or other external standards. Copyright 1997 by the University of Chicago.

Date: 1997
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/468003 (application/pdf)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:26:y:1997:i:2:p:433-73

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The Journal of Legal Studies from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().