Should 'State of the Art' Safety Be a Defense Against Liability?

James Boyd and Daniel Ingberman

RFF Working Paper Series from Resources for the Future

Abstract: Liability for injury due to hazardous products often hinges on the safety of the defendants product relative to the safety of similar products. For instance, firms that can show their product's safety was "state of the art" can in some cases have their liability removed. This paper explores the legal definition of what it means to be state of the art and considers whether or not the availability of the defense is likely to improve product safety. The state of the art defense's effect on safety is found to depend on whether courts rely on a "technological advancement" or a "customary practice" tests of state of the art. When consumers are under-informed regarding product risks, the technological advancement test improves safety, and welfare, in a broad set of situations.

Date: 1995-10-01
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

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:rff:dpaper:dp-96-01

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in RFF Working Paper Series from Resources for the Future Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Resources for the Future (info@rff.org).