This article is written by Nikita Desai. It explains the concept of Restatements of Torts and how they took the form of different Restatements of Torts that provide rules and regulations for making someone responsible for the wrongful acts committed by them. It also explains the documentary evidence of its existence, problems, and opinions of the courts through the Restatement (Second and Third) of Torts. It explains the concept of product liability, the apportionment of liability, and liability for physical, emotional, and economic harm. It also provides insights into how the Restatement (Third) of Torts was bifurcated into numerous parts explaining the liability arising from negligence, defective products, and many other elements of torts.

Introduction

The laws of any country are considered to be the backbone of the legal fraternity. Laws are a set of rules, principles, and regulations created and enforced by governmental institutions. The laws of any country are in place to regulate the behavior of its citizens and organizations, and without laws, the world can be a place of chaos. However, the laws that are encoded in the legal books can be quite difficult for ordinary, non-lawyers to understand and interpret. It becomes difficult to grasp the meaning of what the particular law is trying to say at all. Sometimes, even for lawyers and judges, the legal language of the law can be a daunting task to understand. To solve the issue in this regard for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, the Restatements are used by the courts. 

Let us understand what restatements are all about and how they are helping the legal fraternity achieve their legal talents with maximum efficiency as well as the concept of Restatements of Torts. 

What is Restatement of the Law

The Restatements, known as the Restatement of Law, are extensive, comprehensive, and exhaustive guidebooks, similar to treatises. These guidebooks are a thorough analysis of a specific subject or a legal topic in the field of law. These guidebooks serve a similar function to that of a treaty. It lays down a structured and organized framework of principles and rules for a particular area of law. Restatement of laws is also a secondary source of statements of law that are aimed at providing clarity and guidance to the legal community. It helps to understand the laws more easily. For example, law review articles and treaties are considered secondary sources of materials.

These secondary sources are written and published by the American Law Institute (ALI) which was founded in 1923 and is a leading and independent organization enabling scholarly work for the law community, particularly on United States common law. This organization includes various groups of judges, law professors, and attorneys. In simpler terms, restatements of laws are more like ideas, developed based on current values in the legal system. These are used in court decisions to simplify the laws for clear understanding. These are not regular independent sources of law. Restatements are primarily designed to be used by the courts. It means that courts are not bound to mandatorily follow the principles of the Restatements. Therefore, it is different from laws that are curated by lawmakers (legislation).

Currently, the Restatement of Laws exists in twenty different areas of law, such as contracts, laws governing lawyers, copyrights, employment laws, torts, and many more. These are all written and published by the ALI to help the courts better understand and interpret the current system of common law. Various established case laws and statutes from various jurisdictions are consolidated for Restatements of Law. Today, Restatements of Law deal with a wide range of subjects, such as federal, state, and hybrid. Even every court in the U.S., whether it is federal, state, or territorial, relies on, uses, and cites these Restatements in their verdicts or decisions.

For example, imagine you are studying copyright law or contract law for your college assignment or your legal research, and you are facing difficulties in understanding the key legal rules and principles (black letters). In such a case, these restatements act as a guide that explains and provides a reader with clear, organized, and structured resources on these principles. It’s like a map that helps a reader navigate through the complex world of these laws.

Components of Restatements of Laws

There are several different components of the Restatements of Law. They include:

• Black letter: Black letters are applicable legal rules, principles, or statements of law. They are directly drawn from the content of the judicial opinions.
• Comments: Comments follow the rules of black letters provisions. It explains and applies the rule and background, and provides the rationale for the black letter provision.
• Illustrations: Illustrations form part of the comments and provide examples of how the black letter’s provisions apply to the facts.
• Reporter’s Notes: Reporter notes discuss the authority or power of black letters. These are the reporter’s individual opinions and viewpoints about the provisions. 

The first three components, i.e., black letters, comments, and illustrations, are written and interpreted by the ALI. It signifies their official positions in curating these components. Whereas the reporter’s notes, on the other hand, only represent what the reporter has to say (the opinion of the reporter) and not that of ALI. This means that the first three components are officially supported, created, and issued by the ALI and are legally valid to be accepted by the U.S. courts, whereas the reporter’s note may or may not hold such value. 

Mode of authority of secondary sources in Restatements 

Whenever a court has to make a decision or verdict in a disputed case, these secondary sources are considered in the form of persuasive and mandatory authority.

Persuasive authority

The persuasive authority of sources of law (such as lower court decisions) is those whereby these decisions contain value and weightage but are not legally binding on the courts. To use these sources as persuasive authority depends upon the location and rank of the court. The decisions given by a court of one jurisdiction do not bind the court of another jurisdiction. In simpler terms, the courts use these persuasive decisions as examples or as a guide when the issues or laws that they are dealing with are unclear and complex. These Restatements do not replace the precedents or the statutes; however, courts are at their free will to cite such Restatements into provisions of law.

For example, consider a scenario where you are on vacation in Germany, far away from your hometown in the USA. Here, in Germany, people follow different traffic rules than what is followed back in your hometown. In Germany, people receive a ticket for making a U-turn at the red light, while it may be perfectly safe in their hometown to make a U-turn without having to receive any ticket for the same. Therefore, the laws for traffic rules that are followed in Germany are not necessarily binding in your hometown. However, if someone is persuasive enough to convince the government of the USA that U-turns at red lights are reasonably unsafe and tickets should be given, then under such circumstances, the government might consider making it a law. Hence, the government is free to accept such a proposal or discard it.

Mandatory authority

Mandatory authority of sources of law is the type of legal authority whereby these decisions are legally binding on the courts. The courts are obliged to follow such laws. These sources include constitutions, laws, and verdicts of the Apex Court (Higher Court). For example, the constitution of the USA applies throughout every state and court in the USA, and even citizens follow those rules accordingly. Another example is when the decision of the higher court is mandatorily required by the lower court to follow. 

What is Restatement of Torts

Now that we have our basics clear about the Restatement of Laws, let us move toward understanding what the Restatement of Torts is. It is also a series of legal treaties (whose purpose is the same as that of guidebooks) and simplifies the principles and rules of tort law as established by the common law of the U.S.A. The Restatement of Torts is also referred to as Restatement (First) of Torts. The Restatement of Tort serves as a secondary source of tort law, curated or issued by legal experts of the ALI. It describes how tort law should be used, interpreted, and applied to the cases that come before the U.S. court of law. These are highly authoritative and influential publications. 

Restatements of Torts explain various aspects of tort law, such as assault, battery, negligence, strict liability, defamation, and many more. The explanations, examples, and commentaries included within the Restatements help the judges, lawyers, and scholars (legal community) understand and apply the legal language of rules when different and difficult situations of dispute arise in front of them.

The Restatements of Torts were published in three parts over different periods, and these include:

• Restatement of the Law First, Torts: This was the first Restatement, published by the ALI, to simply state the legal principles of the tort law. The Restatement (First) of Tort is also known as the Restatement of Torts. 
• Restatement of the Law Second, Torts: This publication was the second attempt by the ALI to resolve the problems that occurred in the Restatement (First) of Torts in relation to product liability laws.
• Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: This publication was the third attempt by the ALI to resolve the problem in relation to the design defects and warning label issues that arose in Restatement (Second) of Torts. This third series further provided various parts on Restatements of Torts. They are further discussed in detail throughout this article.

Overview of tort law

According to the 28 USC 171– Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 1946, a tort is when actions or omissions of acts by an individual, business, or government cause harm or injury to another such entity. This is a type of civil wrong that gives rise to civil liability. Civil liability means that when someone wrongfully suffers a loss or harm because of someone else’s action, the injured party has a legal right to initiate legal action (a lawsuit) before an appropriate court of law for the claim of damages and compensation.

Tort law has four essential ingredients:

• Legal duty: A legal duty is a mandatory requirement to fulfill an obligation. It is created by law or agreement. It means one has to follow certain rules and standards in a society. In cases of non-compliance, the law can compel one to follow the rules. For example, if you own land, you will have to maintain it in such a way that it is not harmful to any visitors who visit it.
• Wrongful or unlawful act: The wrongful acts are those that are not valid in the eyes of the law. This can be a person’s actions or behavior that are considered to be harmful for practice in society. 
• Personal injury: A personal injury is a harm or physical injury suffered by another person due to the wrongful or illegal acts of another person. For example, death, mental suffering, or emotional distress
• Remedy: A remedy is a form of compensation for the injury suffered by the injured party. Compensation can be in the form of damages, declaratory judgments, or coercive remedies.

The main objectives of the tort law include:

• Enabling the injured person to secure relief through monetary compensation, injunction, or restitution. 
• To make the wrongdoer accountable for their actions by imposing liability.
• To prevent others from committing similar dangerous acts.

By now, we know that tort law is derived from common law and state laws, but did you know that the judges decide what amounts to a wrongful act, what defenses need to be used, or how much money is needed to be awarded or compensated? The judges of the court may use the Restatement of Torts, which provides a broader explanation for the black letter rules of the common law.

The torts are generally categorized into three different general categories. These are known as

• Intentional torts: An intentional tort covers the wrongful acts of a person that are done intentionally to cause harm to another person. The intention of causing harm is the main ingredient in intentional torts. For example, intentionally hitting a person with a bat to cause injury is an example of intentional tort.
• Negligent torts: A negligent tort covers wrongful acts that are done either intentionally or unintentionally. Harm from negligence occurs when a person is not reasonable in conducting the duties that are expected of a reasonable prudent person to carry out or conduct. For example, causing a road accident by not following the traffic rules
• Strict liability torts: A strict liability tort covers wrongful acts that are done without any intent or mental state. For example, imagine you have adopted a snake pet. This snake is, however, non-venomous and generally dormant. One fine day, despite your taking all precautions to keep the snake in a safe area, the snake manages to escape from that area. The snake travels and bites your neighbor, causing a serious injury. 

In situations like this, you can be held liable for the injuries caused to your neighbor, even if you took reasonable care to prevent such incidents from occurring. The fact that the snake caused harm, regardless of your intent and mental state to not inflict harm, can lead to a strict liability claim.

Evolution of the Restatements of Torts

By now, we are aware that the Restatements of Tort were entirely developed by the ALI, which is a highly admired and esteemed organization in the legal field, but do you know the reason behind the ALI’s success in publishing Restatements of Torts? The reason is that ALI’s purpose is to improve the vast area of law and not just the tort law. The ALI researchers studied numerous case laws that are decided in various courts, including legal literature, to write the current Restatements of Torts. The ALI turned this information into more simplified statements of rules and principles in compliance with the common law. To achieve this, major changes were brought about by ALI in the following years. Let us have a look at those timelines in terms of the Restatement of Torts.

• 1923: The ALI appointed its first reporter, Professor Francis H. Bohlen, who was working at the University of Pennsylvania during his tenure. The original Restatements of Tort were the product of the majority of his efforts. 
• 1934-1939: The first original Restatements of Tort, also known as Restatement (First) of Torts, was published in 4 volumes. It consisted of a total of 951 sections.
• 1940-1950: During this period, the Restatement (First) of Torts paved its way in judicial decisions and within the classrooms of the legal fraternity.
• 1954: During this year, a project for the development of the Restatement (Second) of Tort took place. This was done by William L. Prosser, Berkeley’s then-dean. By the year 1954, the primary draft of the Restatement (Second) of Tort was established before the advisors. 
• 1979: In the year 1979, the fourth volume of Restatement (Second) of Tort was published. This was done by the reporter for ALI, Professor John Wade of Vanderbilt. Both Restatements of Torts (the first and the second) appeared to be very successful during that time.
• Late 1979: During this year, the Restatements (Second) of Tort laws became the subject of scrutiny and political attacks. This led to the development of the Model Uniform Product Liability Act of 1979 (MUPLA).  Debates were also circling the need to develop the Restatement (Third) of Torts to deal with the issues that came within this part of the series.
• 1986: During this year, there were issues in cases of personal injuries that were caused because of business activities (injuries occurring because of faulty products). To solve this issue, ALI adopted a different approach. Instead of appointing reporters for the development of  projects for Restatement, ALI took the method of nondoctrinal policy review as done by the U.S. government. A non-doctrinal policy review is about studying policies and how they work in real life instead of diving into the legal technicalities of laws, rules, and regulations. The ALI chose experts who were already famous in the field of personal injury law instead of appointing reporters in the field of personal injury law. However, this approach was met with criticism and found not to be useful. Later, this approach was abandoned by the ALI. 

Personal injury refers to every variety of injuries that occur to an individual, including body, emotions, or reputation. It is different from injuries that are caused to a person in respect of his or her property rights.

• 1987: To finish the task of simplifying the Restatement (Second) of Torts, ALI bifurcated the work into several parts. To deal with the area of product liability, ALI appointed professors from Brooklyn Law School.
• 1997: Through the efforts of the co-reporters appointed by the ALI, the first segment of product liability was incorporated under the Restatement (Third) of Torts. 
• 1999- 2001: With the efforts of the co-reporters appointed by the ALI, William C. Powers, Jr. dean of the University of Texas School of Law, and Michael D. Green, professor of Wake Forest School of Law, the second segment, apportionment of liability, was incorporated under Restatement (Third) of Torts. 

ALI appointed Professor Schwartz as a reporter to cover the third segment on tort liability for physical harm and emotional harm. A partial draft of this segment was presented in the same year. The final draft of this was presented in 2001 with the efforts of co-reporters from the second segment.

How tort liability is different from criminal liability

Sl. No.	Aspects	Tort liability	Criminal liability
1.	Nature of wrong	A tort is a civil or private wrong that is done against a particular entity.	A crime is a criminal wrong that is done against the state or society at large.
2.	Purpose of liability	The purpose of civil liability is to compensate the victim rather than punish the wrongdoer.	The purpose of criminal liability is to provide public justice.
3.	Negligence as an example	If an individual gets hurt because of a spill on the floor in a store, then the injured party can sue for compensation as the store owner is liable.	If an individual causes an accident on the road because he/she was not careful and kills someone, then on behalf of the victim, one can sue the criminal for reckless driving.
	Battery as an example	For battery actions, the monetary remedy will be provided to the aggrieved party by the court.	For the actions of battery, the court will award rehabilitation to the offender. This would benefit society later, as there is hope that the criminal will turn into a reasonably prudent individual.

Remedies in tort law

The aggrieved party or the injured party has a right to claim compensation through remedies that are made available by the US government when such party loses or suffers any harm. The party has a right to sue for compensation through damages or can stop someone from doing a similar act through an injunction. When the court is satisfied that the alleged offender can cause further mischief or is certain that it is necessary to prevent their bad behavior, it may charge or award extra money to the offender through punitive damages. Let us understand this in detail.

Compensatory damages

Compensatory damages are awarded when a tort case is won by an aggrieved party; in most cases, the court awards compensation in the form of money. This awarded money is used by the aggrieved party to cover things like lost income, potential future earnings, pain and agony, medical bills, and many other basic essential needs.

Punitive damages

Punitive damages are a form of remedy awarded to the aggrieved party through the offender. When the court is satisfied that, for the greater good of society, it is necessary to hold the offender from repeating further such wrongdoing, punitive damages are awarded. Extra money is charged for compensatory damages. This is done to further inflict hardships on the wrongdoer and to prevent their bad behavior. 

For example, when a company makes a faulty product or when a worker of such a company or an individual suffers a nominal injury due to the faulty product, the court can award costs against such a company with punitive damages to remind them to be careful next time in their functioning. 

Injunctions

There arises a situation where an aggrieved party, instead of seeking compensation against the wrongdoer, asks the court to award against such an offender or wrongdoer an order to stop them from doing or engaging further in the dangerous activity. This is also known as a court order of injunction. An injunction is awarded in place of monetary damages. To do this, the party has to satisfy the court that, in the absence of such an order, the party will suffer greater injury or will be seriously harmed. 

For example, imagine your neighbor is playing loud music each night, and such noise is unbearable for you and even disturbs your sleep schedule. So, instead of suing your neighbor in court for monetary damages, you ask the judge to award an injunction order to stop them from doing such activity later on. For this, you will need to prove that, in the absence of such an order, you will suffer more harm due to a disturbed sleep cycle.

Restatement of the Law Second, Torts

Now moving toward the Restatement (Second) of Torts, work for this series began at the end of World War II (WWII). It almost took 22 years for it to be in action. The Restatement (Second) of Torts is the second part of the Restatement of Torts series. This Restatement consists of four volumes. The first two volumes were published in the year 1965, the third in the year 1977, and the last was published by the ALI in the year 1979. 

The Restatement (Second) of Torts is different from the Restatement (First) of Torts. In the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the rules and principles were more influenced by the ideas of the experts or reporters instead of following the ideas used by judges in the court. This means that even those rules and principles were included in the Restatement (Second) of Tort that were not commonly agreed upon or were less popular in the courts. This is what we also call the black-letter rule.

The guidebook gained a lot of momentum during its period in the legal fraternity. One of the most prominent and cited provisions from this restatement was Section 402A- strict product liability (liability in cases of defective products). 

The Restatement (Second) of Torts focused particularly on the product that had manufacturing defects. For example, manufacturing defects include assembling a bicycle without its key parts, such as brakes or paddles, or a can of soda containing foreign elements, such as insects. These are considered products with manufacturing defects. The defects are already present when the product is manufactured. There were various controversies and criticisms surrounding liability for manufacturing defects of products because the majority of cases of disputes regarding product liability were registered before the U.S. Court. 

Concept of strict liability in Restatement (Second) of Tort

The year 1979 was the beginning point for the concept of strict liability provisions being introduced as a doctrine in the legal fraternity. This concept was brought about and included by the Restatement (Second) of Tort. The concept of strict liability from Restatement (Second) of Tort became a key principle in the legal field. The concept of strict liability was adopted and applied to product liability cases in 34 jurisdictions across the United States. The concept of strict liability brought a significant change in legal standards. 

According to tort law, in strict liability, the accused is held strictly responsible even in the absence of his or her intent and mental state while committing an illegal or wrongful act. This means that the other person was not required to prove that the accused was careless and intended any harm while committing or omitting an action. In simpler terms, it means that when an accused commits a crime or an act, he/she is made liable for such a crime or act despite the absence of the mental state, motive, and intent (the three ingredients of crime) behind committing such an act.

For example, imagine a scenario where an individual owns and keeps a pet that is a dangerously ferocious dog. If this animal escapes and injures another individual in the neighborhood, then, under such circumstances, the owner is held strictly liable. Here, even though there was no mental state or intent of the owner to cause harm, he or she can still be held liable for a tort. 

There are also various breeds of dogs that are banned from being kept as pets because of this reason in the United States. According to the Animal Legal and Historical Center, there is breed-specific legislation in the United States that bans or restricts certain dog breeds, such as Rottweilers, American Bulldogs, German Shepherd dogs, and many more that proved to be dangerously wild to society.

Applicability of strict liability under tort law

Today, when the principle of strict liability is applied to tort cases, there are three categories of activities or actions for which an individual can be held liable. These include:

• Possession of dangerous animals.
• Abnormally dangerous activity 

An abnormally dangerous activity is one where uncommon acts by a person can cause injury to another person. The actions of such a person are risky, even if they are careful in conducting them. If one is found guilty of such an act, then that person is held liable for physical harm.

• Strict product liability 

A strict product liability occurs when the injured party proves the product to be defective and that it has caused harm. Here, the aggrieved party needs to prove that despite the absence of intent, reasonable care taken, or motive on the part of the manufacturer to avoid any harm, the injury is still suffered.

During the development of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, strict liability was just a concept. After its publication and adoption by ALI, only the first two principles were widely applicable in the majority of the disputed cases. However, this also created major problems because courts began to apply the principles and rules of strict liability, which were limited to dangerous activities and wild animals, in almost all cases involving faulty (defective) products. 

Wave of change in Restatement (Second) of Tort

Serious debates were going on among scholars, judges, and lawyers about how to identify laws that are based on facts, laws that are not important or harmless but also cannot be justified by principles of justice, and laws that are not supported by the principle of justice and are evil in action. The preference for stating the law as “what it should ideally be rather than what the law back then was” became more important during the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

These reporters of ALI realized that since the Restatement (First) of Tort, many changes have taken place in the cases of personal injuries that arose before the U.S. Court.  During this time, the court began to extend and apply the rules and principles of contract law (warranty) to the cases of personal injuries that are caused by food products or any other products in general. For example, many court cases observed that for injuries occurring from cosmetic products, the aggrieved party filed for compensation before the court based on the rules of contract law. This means that the court began to treat cases of faulty products as cases of contract warranty issues. In warranty cases, no proof of fault is required to be shown to claim compensation. By applying this, many courts began to hold manufacturers responsible for the injuries caused by the faulty products, even in the cases of individuals who did not directly buy the products. 

To address this issue at hand, one of the most significant changes brought by William L. Prosser in the Restatement (Second) of Tort was the introduction of the draft Section 402A (strict product liability), which dealt with injuries caused by defective products. 

Doctrine of strict product liability 

The Restatement (Second) of Tort then provided the concept of strict product liability (Section 402A). Restatement (Second) of Tort means that, despite the absence of intent or motive on the part of the manufacturer of the product, the company is held liable for serving defective products to consumers in the marketplace. Section 402A states rules and regulations for the ‘special liability of sellers of products for physical harm to a user or consumer.’ 

The strict liability under Section 402A was drafted three times during the development of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. When the draft appeared in 1961, it was widely applicable to food and drinks; the 1962 draft applied to intimate bodily use products; and the 1963 draft gave birth to the concept of strict product liability.

Let us understand what we mean by strict product liability through an example. Imagine a scenario where you went to a store to buy a toaster or mixer grinder. After coming home,  initially, on your first use of this mixer grinder or toaster, it starts a fire in your house because of a wiring issue in the mixer grinder or toaster. You were hurt and got some bruises; even your kitchen suffered the damage. Now, under such circumstances, you have a legal right to sue the toaster or mixer grinder manufacturer, the store from where you bought this product, and even the company that did the faulty wiring. In simpler terms, you have a legal right to sue all those individuals or companies that are on the chain of the production line (top to bottom) of such products, including manufacturers, assembling manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. 

Even when such defective products are borrowed from some other party and that party suffers harm, they also have a legal right to sue or bring product liability suits. Product liability also applies to things like gas, pets, houses, or written materials. These are intangible forms of product liabilities.

Greenman case (product liability existence)

Significance of the case

In the case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963), the doctrine of strict product liability (Section 402A) came into existence as courts began to apply the laws of contract (warranty) to defective product cases. Subsequently. The ALI  adopted strict product liability in 1964. 

This case set a precedent, or ratio decidendi for further such cases. This case created a lot of stir in the marketplace about how laws are made to protect different segments of individuals in a marketplace. It also shows how laws protect powerful consumers and how they sometimes even punish non-negligent manufacturers. 

It also addressed the difficulty of claiming defense in product liability cases. It also defined negligence and the standard of proof for making the manufacturer strictly liable in cases of product negligence.  

Facts of the case

• In 1955, Mr. Greenman received a Shopsmith as a gift from his wife. It was a power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and lathe.
• In 1957, Mr. Greenman purchased an accessory from the Shopsmith to use as a lathe. However, while working, the accessory detached from the lathe, hit him, and caused severe injuries.
• Ten months later, a written notice was issued by Mr.Green to the manufacturer, Yuba Power Products Inc., and retailer of the Shopsmith. 
• A legal notice was issued for the breach of warranties and to recover damages for the breach of warranty and negligence. 
• Later, a case was filed by Mr. Greenman before the San Diego County Superior Court, followed by another case before the Supreme Court of California.

Issue involved in the case

Whether the manufacturer of the product is strictly liable in tort when it causes injury to the consumer from the product defect or not

Judgment of the court

Initially, the Superior Court of San Diego County held in favor of the manufacturer and retailer. The Court stated that evidence was absent on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to show proof of breach of warranty or negligence on the part of the manufacturer and retailer for causing harm/injury.

The Supreme Court of California, however, rejected the decision of the Superior Court of San Diego County. The Supreme Court of California stated that according to Section 1732 of the California Code of Civil Procedure when the question is of imposing strict liability, there is no need for evidence of express warranty (contract law) to be shown between the two parties in dispute. The express warranty means that when someone verbally promises or mentions that a product is of a certain quality or condition, 

The Court states that despite the delay in claims for damages by the plaintiff, the injured person still needs to be compensated. This is because inflicted personal injury plays a significant role in securing justice.

The Court stated that the “manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowingly that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.” The Court stated that evidence of injury is sufficient to prove the manufacturer’s strict liability.

This means that when a manufacturer makes and introduces a faulty product in the marketplace, the company should be held strictly liable. This is because the injury is caused to the person by using such a faulty product. The company is held responsible for the injuries caused to the aggrieved party. 

Drawbacks of strict product liability 

The judge’s decisions in the Greenman case changed the entire scenario of how the doctrine of strict liability can be made applicable to defective products. The judge was of the view that the cost of injuries should be borne by the manufacturer and should not be a burden on the injured person, who was unable to protect himself. The doctrine of strict liability for defective products became widely popular among the judges of the court. It was widely applicable to numerous cases related to injury or harm caused to consumers due to products being faulty.

However, there was a major drawback under the strict product liability that was not even addressed in the Greenman case. This case did not define what makes a product defective, nor did it distinguish the types of defects such as manufacturing processes, designs, and marketing. It simply means there were no standards for determining what makes a product to be considered faulty.

The judge only used the words “unreasonably dangerous, defective products, and defects.” There was no proper definition of the word ‘product’. This posed a major problem in deciding the decisions in the cases that involved different products, such as consumers or industrial products. This is because there was an absence of any previous cases or scholarly works that could act as a guide for the judges in such cases involving different kinds of products. For example, medical and pharmaceutical devices cannot be considered unreasonably dangerous if a known risk is associated with them and cannot be avoided, or if the manufacturer cannot be held liable for harms that occur through the inherent characteristics of the products that cannot be removed.

To apply the rules and principles of strict product liability more effortlessly, the problem of what makes a product defective was solved in the case of Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp. (1972), as decided by the Supreme Court of California. This case defined a defective product concerning negligence. The Court held the manufacturer responsible even for defects in the designs of the products. The design defects simply mean that the product was created correctly for its intended purpose. However, the inherent design of a product is such that it poses dangers to the consumers who might use it. There were no warning labels or safety instructions attached to the use of such products. For example, there are inherent motor defects in a car.

Design defects instead of manufacturing defects in strict product liability 

There were various products available in the market whose designs were complex. Therefore, applying this doctrine of strict product liability (Section 402A) to all the complex products and sentencing decisions by the courts in such cases did not go well with the consumers. 

During the Restatement (Second) of Tort, many courts rejected the applicability of strict product liability in cases involving complex product design or products with insufficient information, such as warning labels or instructions. Those cases were not of manufacturing defects but instead of design defects. This created a lot of confusion in the courts regarding the applicability of Section 402A from the Restatement (Second) of Tort. This is because Section 402A failed to provide a standard for determining design defects that would make the manufacturer liable. 

According to the majority of the decisions of the courts in such cases, the courts believed that liability cannot be imposed on the manufacturer for risks that are uncertain or cannot be eliminated with a product design. To apply this principle, one must deprive the consumer of the usefulness or desirability of the product, and in such a case, it’s practically not feasible. This means that if dangerous but useful products, such as kitchen knives when used, in such cases, the company cannot be held responsible for the injuries that occur to the consumers because of the product use. Hence, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for the injuries in such cases. This is because, to make the manufacturer liable, the company will have to take out the usefulness of the product. In simpler terms, the principle of strict product liability from Restatements (Second) of Torts failed in its application in terms of warnings and design liability. Let us understand this through an example. 

For example, imagine a scenario where you bought a cool gadget for yourself to play with just to pass your time. This gadget does not have a warning or instructions label on it. The gadget does not explain how to use the product or what would happen in case the product is misused (lack of safety measures and instructions). Now, you suffer an injury because of the product on a random fine day. In such a case, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for your injuries just because of the complicated design of the product. 

This is because there was no standard to determine liability for design defects. The lack of safety measures and instruction labels on the products forms a part of the design defect. The products are designed in such a way that warning and instructions labels are not only included in the products. The Court does not know how to do proper justice by applying strict product liability from the Restatement (Second) of Tort in such cases. Confusion revolved in the courts around whether to make the manufacturer liable for the injuries suffered by the consumers or not.

Legal implications of the doctrine 

During the 1970s, the U.S. courts applied Section 402A, and how they applied this provision created problems for interstate commerce. To solve this issue at hand, the Uniform Commercial Code of 1951 (UCC) was adopted by the U.S. government. However, UCC did not prove to be effective in its applicability for solving the defective product issues that arose in the product liability cases.

Uniform Commercial Code of 1951

The legal implication of Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Tort was the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code,1951 (UCC). The UCC provides the rules and regulations that govern commercial transactions in the U.S. The UCC is essential for interstate transactions of a business. It is also known as the “backbone of American commerce.”

During the time of Restatement (Second) of Tort, whenever there were cases of personal injury due to defective products, victims used to seek or retort both Article 2  of the Code (warranty rules) and Section 402A (strict liability rules) for filing lawsuits.

The victims sometimes also took retort of other tort and contract theories such as negligence or misrepresentation. This means that the victims held the manufacturer liable for undue care practices and misleading information about the safety of the products. These practices for seeking compensation from the victims proved to be very confusing for the courts. The reason is that the definition of the term ‘goods’ in UCC and the definition of the term ‘product’ in Restatement (Second) of Tort were not consistent with each other.

The definition of the term ‘goods’ in the UCC referred to “all things which are movable at the time of identification of the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities, and things in action.” This means that during the contract of sale, only movable items were classified as goods. It did not include non-movable items such as money, investments, or other security materials. While the definition of the term ‘product’ in the Restatement (Second) of Tort was left for the courts to decide, meaning the courts had free will to decide what items should be considered or added to the list of products. This included all products, both movable as well as non-movable products.

The Restatement (Second) of Tort provided a very broader meaning of the product, whereas, in the UCC, goods only referred to movable items with reference to commercial transactions. This created so much confusion for the courts to decide whether the manufacturer could be held liable for the injuries that were caused because of the faulty products or not. Therefore, this code was unable to stand the test of time for the issues regarding product liability. 

Model Uniform Product Liability Act of 1980

After the ineffectiveness of the UCC, to bring uniformity and stability and to simplify product liability legislation, President Ford set up a task force agency known as the Federal Interagency Task Force in the year 1976. This fell under the ambit of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The work of simplifying the product liability legislation continued under President Carter’s presidency. The same Federal Interagency Task Force under his regime found that inconsistency in product liability law caused problems like the underdevelopment of new products, increased insurance costs, and even relatively good products from the market being taken off the shelves. According to the Federal Interagency Task Force report, Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Tort focused only on manufacturing defects and ignored the defects of designs, or duty to warn (warning labels and instructions). To tackle this issue, the Model Uniform Product Liability Act, 1980 (MUPLA) was introduced and enacted. 

The MUPLA provided a basic standard (single rule) for tackling product liability issues. Many courts adopted the rules as a guide for making their own decisions. The definition of the word ‘product’ under Section 102 of the MUPLA was even more exhaustive as compared to what was established in the Restatement (Second) of Tort.

The main objective of the MUPLA of 1980 was to solve the following problems that occurred in aspects of product liability:

• To set fair insurance rates;
• To stop unsafe manufacturing procedures and processes;
• To make the tort litigation lawsuit more effective and efficient;
• To bring uniformity and stability in the product liability laws;

The MUPLA provided Section 104, which divided the defects in the products into four parts. In the product made by the manufacturer, if unreasonably unsafe variations are involved, only then is the product considered defective and not otherwise.

• The product is unsafe in construction.
• The product is unsafe in design.
• The product is unsafe in providing warning and instructions labels.
• The product is unsafe because of the absence of conformity with the seller’s express warranty. 

However, this model also did not effectively solve the issue of product liability for design defects that arose in Restatement (Second) of Tort.  In theory, everything remained better for product liability laws, but in terms of the applicability of the product liability rules for design defects in the real world, it quite couldn’t handle the end of its bargain. For example, imagine you buy a bicycle from a store as a birthday gift, and later one day the brake of the bicycle fails and you suffer an injury because of a brake failure. In this scenario, if everyone who bought the bicycle suffers an accident, then the manufacturer can be blamed. When this accident occurred only to you, then, in such situations, automatically blaming the manufacturer for the failure of brakes does not seem to be an appropriate allegation. The MUPLA, here failed to recognize “specific situations from case to case” and applied MUPLA rules for every issue related to defects in the product for the manufacturer’s liability. 

When the question of law was poor manufacturing products, the courts remained stuck with the strict product liability rule (Section 402A) for punishing the manufacturer for faulty products. However, when the question or issue was about the designs of the products, the courts realized that Section 402A and the rules of MUPLA were practically impossible in their applications.

Section 402B – Misrepresentation by sellers of chattels to the consumer

In the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 402B (misrepresentation by sellers of chattels to consumers) describes the liability for physical harm to consumers for misrepresentation or concealing true material facts regarding the chattels sold in the market by the sellers.

When the seller of a chattel is made liable for physical harm or injury to the consumer

According to this, any seller who is engaged in the business of selling chattels or things can be held liable or responsible for causing physical harm to the consumer who is using those things or chattels of the seller under the following conditions:

• The seller is using advertisements, labels, or any other means to convey false information to the general public about the important features or quality of the product. Believing this untrue information, consumers suffer physical harm or injury. 
• The seller is also held liable for causing physical harm or injury to the consumer if the seller conveys the false information by mistake or negligently.
• The seller is also held liable for causing physical harm or injury to the consumer if the consumer did not buy the chattel or things directly from the seller.
• The seller is also held liable for causing physical harm or injury to the consumer if the consumer did not enter into any contractual relationship with the seller.

This is because any seller who is selling chattel or things in the marketplace through any means has a duty to convey true information to the general public about the qualities of the product that they are selling. 

In the absence of true information, if those means describe or say something wrong about what the sellers are selling or spread false information about what the sellers are selling in the marketplace, the consumer can suffer physical harm or injury by believing those misrepresentations. Due to such circumstances, the court holds the seller liable for the injuries caused to the consumer, regardless of whether the seller intended to cause harm or not.

Let us understand this through an example:

• For example, imagine there is a company called ‘SafetyToys’, which is selling a popular toy ball with the name ‘Jumping Ball’. For branding, they advertise or use the labels for the ball to be super bouncy and safe in its use for kids as well as adults. However, the company SafetyToys is aware of the defect present within the Jumping Ball. The defect is that the Jumping Ball has the tendency to burst unexpectedly. Even though the company does not mean to mislead its customers; however, they also do not take adequate measures to properly check their products or make a mistake in their claims about the safety of the product. 

Now falling prey to this advertisement and believing the information to be true in its essence, you one day buy this Jumping Ball Toy (product) for your child, directly from the SafetyToys store. Also, you bought this Jumping Ball without signing an agreement with the SafetyToys. A few days later, to your surprise, the Jumping Ball burst unexpectedly while your child was playing with it. Your child suffers a physical injury or harm.

• All the factors, such as spreading false information and being negligent in their actions and claims, called for the company’s misrepresentative behavior. In such situations, the company or seller, SafetyToys is held liable by the courts for the misrepresentation of the information regarding the product to the consumer.
• In case you bought the product from the third-party store that sells the Jumping Ball by the SafetyToys, instead of buying the product directly from the SafetyToys store, then under such circumstances, the company SafetyToys is still held accountable by the courts for their actions of advertising or using false labels for selling their product in the marketplace for the consumer that has the potential tendency to cause physical harm. 

In all such situations, the court can hold the company SafetyToys liable for the physical injury that is caused to your child from playing with their product, the Jumping Ball. This is because the company misled its customers by not providing true information regarding the product that the company is selling. The seller is duty-bound to be honest about what they are selling in the marketplace for their customers to avoid causing any harm to their valuable consumers.  

When the seller of a chattel may or may not be made liable for physical harm or injury to the consumer

Section 402B further states that the seller of a chattel or thing may or may not be held liable for causing physical harm or injury to the consumer by the U.S. courts under the following conditions:

• When the seller misrepresents the important features or qualities of the chattel to a specific person, such information is not conveyed to the general public.
• When the seller misrepresents the important features or qualities of the chattel and because of that untrue information, harm is suffered to someone who is not a buyer as well user of the chattel that is sold.

Let us understand this through an example:

• For example, imagine a scenario where a company named iTech is selling a smartphone to one of its customers named Gizmo. For selling the product (smartphone), iTech tells Gizmo that the smartphone consists an amazing inbuilt features, such as the smartphone is waterproof, or having damage resistance. 
• Believing this information to be true in its essence, Gizmo purchases the smartphone. During one of Gizmo’s vacations, and based on that particular information, Gizmo uses the smartphone near the pool area. To Gizmo’s surprise, however, the phone fell into the pool and it resulted in the smartphone getting damaged.
• The information that the smartphone was not waterproof remained disclosed only to the iTech company. Advertising false information regarding the smartphone also remained disclosed between GIzmo and iTech. The information regarding such features of the smartphone was not disclosed to the general public.
• Since iTech presented false information regarding the smartphone being waterproof only to Gizmo and not to the general public, the court may or may not hold iTech accountable for misrepresenting the false characteristics or quality of the smartphone.
• In another scenario, if Gizmo’s friend uses the smartphone purchased by Gizmo and during the use of the smartphone, results in damage then under such situations, the court may or may not hold iTech liable for misrepresenting the false characteristics or quality of the smartphone. In this scenario, even Gizmo’s friend was unaware of the fact of the false information about the smartphone being waterproof. 

In situations like this, it entirely depends upon the circumstances of the case about when to hold the company liable for misrepresenting the information regarding the product that they are selling to its customers. For this, the false information need not be advertised to the general public. It should be advertised only to a specific person. 

How does Section 402A differ from Section 402B of Restatement (Second) of Torts

Even though the Section 402B rule is about false information and making the seller accountable for the harm caused to the consumer, it still differs from Section 402A – the strict product liability rule. Let us look at how they differ from each other.

• Section 402B states the strict liability of a seller for causing physical harm to the consumer by misrepresenting or concealing the true material facts about the product, chattel, or thing that is sold by them in the marketplace.
• On the other hand, in Section 402A – strict product liability, the manufacturer is held accountable if, because of consumption of the product sold by them, the consumers suffer any physical harm or injury.

Section 402A is a special rule applicable only to the products that are meant for consumption by the seller. This does not depend upon the misrepresentation factor. Whereas, Section 402B is applicable to any seller for any kind of product that is sold by them in the marketplace. Section 402B particularly deals with false information focusing on the characteristics or quality of the chattel. 

Another parallel rule to 402A and 402B of strict liability is for financial losses that result from such misrepresentation. It is described under Section 552 – Information negligently supplied for the guidance of others.

Restatement of the Law Third, Torts

A lot of changes occurred in delivering justice since the issue of product liability became the highlight during the Restatements (Second) of Torts.  It was a recurring debate in society and politics. Various important judicial, scholarly, and legislative movements arose regarding the laws about whom to make liable when an injury is caused by a defective product. To solve this issue of product liability once and for all, ALI decided to start a new and third series known as Restatement of the Law Third, Torts. 

The Restatements (Third) of Torts is the third part of the Restatement series. The Restatements (Third) of Torts are superseded by the work of the Restatements (Second) of Torts. The prominent Section 402A from Restatement (Second) of Tort is the reason why the third part of this series exists, discussing every aspect of product liability tort in detail. This part replaced Section 402A. This part was published in the year 1977.

Development of the Restatement (Third) of Torts

Let us have a look at the major events that prominently shaped this Restatement.

• 1990- ALI set up a study group known as the Reporters Study on Enterprise Responsibility for Personal Injury. This group established the knowledge that was important in terms of updating the laws regarding products that caused injury. The group also gathered information on how the courts need to handle cases of product liability. However, this was never adopted as an official policy of the ALI.
• 1991- ALI appointed Professors James A. Henderson, Jr. from Princeton University, and Aaron D. Twerski from Brooklyn Law School to lead the third series of the restatement. Many other members, such as William Wagner and Robert Habush, former presidents of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) among various others, were appointed under this advisory committee. It consisted of a twenty-member committee. These leaders were unbiased in their opinions, which served the purpose well for the ALI. Apart from this, a consultative group was also formed by ALI, which included experienced practitioners from the American Bar.
• 1993-1997- These experts provided their ideas and opinions, which were later turned into drafts for further discussion, debates, and revision. The governing council and director of ALI then processed these drafts through various rigorous review processes. In the end, the final draft of restatements was adopted into the Restatement (Third) of Torts on 17 May, 1997.

Basic principles of Restatement (Third) of Torts

The Restatement (Third) of Torts runs on the basic principle of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, i.e., to make the company liable for the cause of injury in the case of a product defect (strict product liability).

• The strict liability (Section 402A) set up by Restatement (Second) of Torts for manufacturing defects of the products, i.e., to hold the manufacturer liable for the manufacturing defects, even in the absence of intent, 
• For the issue of the design and warning cases of the products, the Restatement (Third) of Torts established a fault-based approach. It means making the manufacturer liable only when they are at fault (created a mistake or acted carelessly) and not otherwise. 

For example, if a toy with hidden defects causes injury, the company is liable even in the absence of knowledge (such defect might cause injury) and intent on the part of the manufacturer under the old strict liability rule [Restatements (Second) of Torts]. However, with the new rule as founded by the Restatement (Third) of Torts, the manufacturer can only be held liable when such hidden defects cause injury. The company is made liable for the injuries only when he/she was not careful enough in making the toy or when the manufacturer knew about the defect and still did not fix those defects in the toy (product).

Benefits of Restatement (Third) of Torts

• The Restatement (Third) of Torts implies a rule where manufacturers, from time to time, have to keep warning consumers about the potential risks of their products once they are in the marketplace. In the absence of a duty to warn consumers, the manufacturer can be held liable if the injury or harm is suffered by the consumers.
• The Restatement (Third) of Torts implies a rule whereby the manufacturer has to voluntarily recall the product if there are any defects found in the product. This is known as the ‘Good Samaritan Rule,’ (you have to help where you can help).
• The Restatement (Third) of Torts implies a rule that when a dangerous product is made available and exists in a marketplace, it normally should not have been produced or made; then, in such extraordinary situations, the court has a right to make the manufacturer liable for the injury (if occurred). For example, this would apply to the pharmaceutical drugs that no reasonable doctor should have prescribed to their patients. This is because such drugs can have an adverse effect on the mental health of the patient consuming them or even result in death. 
• The Restatement (Third) of Torts brought a major change in the cases of design and warning-related defects. It implied a rule of res ipsa loquitur. It is the Latin term for the meaning “things speak for itself.” According to this rule, one does not have to bring direct evidence to prove the defect in a product or an expert for that issue.

Criticisms on the benefits of Restatement (Third) of Torts

However, these rules were met with various criticisms on the basis that they favor more to the accused party (the defense side) rather than the injured victim. Some of these are as follows:

• The Restatement (Third) of Torts established one single, consistent rule of product liability. The critics wanted a rule where liability could be easily imposed on the manufacturer or the company for a defective product. However, ALI did not support the viewpoints of the critics. The ALI believed that when consumers know their rights and manufacturers know their responsibilities, mishaps can be avoided.
• The Restatement (Third) of Torts made the provision less valuable, which required the injured party to prove that a different design of a product could have made the product safer. This was a very important aspect when it came to design defects of defective cars and medical devices. 

Sub-categories of Restatement (Third) of Torts

The Restatement (Third) of Torts series is divided into different sub-parts that include:

1. Restatements of Law Third, Torts: Product Liability (1998).
2. Restatements of Law Third, Torts: Apportionment of Liability (2000).
3. Restatements of Law Third, Torts: Liability for Physical Harm and Emotional Harm (2010/2012).
4. Restatements of Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm (2020).

There are also other Restatements (Third) of Torts introduced and established by the ALI, including:

• Restatements of Law Third, Torts: Intentional Torts to Persons: The Restatements of Law Third, Torts: Intentional Torts to Persons, is an ongoing work by the ALI. It is revising the Restatement (Second) of Torts portions that have been superseded by the Restatement (Third) of Torts. This series addresses the other major aspects of recovery for physical and emotional harm to a person, including assault, battery, false imprisonment, consent, self-defense, and other privileges.
• Restatements of Law Third, Torts: Miscellaneous Provisions: The Restatements of Law Third, Torts: Miscellaneous Provisions, is also an ongoing work by the ALI. It is revising the Restatement (Second) of Torts portions that have been superseded by the Restatement (Third) of Torts. It addresses topics that are not covered under the Restatement (Third) of Torts, such as medical liability, vicarious liability, wrongful death, and survival actions, among others.
• Restatements of Law Third, Torts: Remedies: The Restatements of Law Third, Torts: Remedies is an ongoing work by the ALI. It is revising the Restatement (Second) of Torts portions that have been superseded by the Restatement (Third) of Torts. This series addresses issues related to the types of recoverable damages, how to measure those damages, monetary reliefs, and lastly, issues related to injunctions against threatened or continuing torts.
• Restatements of Law Third, Torts:  Medical Malpractice: The Restatements of Law Third, Torts:  Medical Malpractice is an ongoing work by the ALI. It is revising the Restatement (Second) of Torts portions that have been superseded by the Restatement (Third) of Torts. This series addresses medical liability.

The ALI initiated several projects or parts for the Restatement (Third) of Tort series. They played a significant role in updating and clarifying the laws related to tort principles.

• The first part on product liability aimed to simplify/clarify the issue of the applicability of strict liability for defective products. However, the concept of a defect within this part that required no fault to be shown as evidence created a little trouble for the courts. Still, this part is considered very significant because it solved the issue of product injuries that was once the limelight of the legal fraternity.
• The second part of the series, apportionment of liability, addressed the issue related to the sharing of damages between the parties in disputes.
• The third and fourth parts aim to clarify the tort laws regarding accidental physical harm. The lead researcher, Professor Schwartz, of this project excluded the topics of injuries like emotional harm, dignitary harm, and economic losses from the study. The work on the excluded topics was further continued by other leaders. They explored and introduced the rule of causation. The rule of causation describes the reason why something that happened took place in the first instance.

In this article, we will discuss the first four Restatements (Third) of Torts that replaced the strict product liability issue of Restatements (Second) of Torts. The brief discussion on the rest is followed within this article as well. This was done to serve better justice by the courts with efficiency and efficacy in terms of defective products causing injury. Let us discuss each of these parts in further detail.

Restatements of Law Third, Torts: Product Liability (1998)

According to the ALI, the Restatement (Third) of Tort: Product Liability (1998) covers all the simplified legal rules related to product liability. It allows the person to be held responsible in the event of injuries caused by the products sold by a manufacturer in the marketplace. It includes the liability of commercial product sellers and distributors. It replaced Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Tort and provided a more detailed view of product liability than what was established during the year 1964. 

According to this, the products are considered defective or bad when:

• There is a manufacturing defect (products are made poorly).
• There is a design defect (product designs are not safe for use or are faulty).
• There is a warning defect (the product does not contain proper warning or instructions labeled for its safe use).

It also contains rules for other different products, such as components/parts of a product, prescription drugs, medical devices, food, and other used products.

Rule of product liability 

What makes someone liable for a product? Well, when the products that are available in the marketplace consist of inherent defects, the average consumer has a right to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer or company, distributor, and seller for making them liable for the defects in the product. However, this lawsuit can only be filed by consumers when the actual defect in the product causes harm or injury to the person who is using such products and not otherwise. The aggrieved consumer can make each person involved in the making of the inherent defective product liable for the injuries suffered. 

There is a vast improvement in product liability laws in the Restatement (Third) of Tort compared to what was previously established in the Restatement (Second) of Tort. Now, in the third part, the commercial seller of a defective product can only be held liable when:

• The company is the one that sold the defective product.
• The company sells the defective product, and the consumers use that product. For example, ABC Toys produces and sells children’s toys with small, detachable parts that pose a choking hazard. If the child chokes on the defective products, the company can be held liable for the injuries due to defective design and manufacture of the products. 
• The person using the defective product suffers an injury.
• Before the sale of the product by the seller, the product was already defective.
• The defect was an actual or proximate cause of the injury to the person using such a product. This means that injury is directly and indirectly linked to the defective product. Without such a defect, the injury would not have occurred. It establishes a cause-effect relationship. The law of this rule only holds a person responsible for direct and significant causes.

Key provisions of product liability law

The key provisions enabled by the product liability law in the Restatement (Third) of Torts include

• The use of circumstantial evidence 

This means that the allegations in the disputed product liability case can be proved by the injured party without a direct piece of evidence. For this, indirect pieces of information or clues are used by the injured party to show that the product was faulty and caused harm. These key provisions allow the injured party to build a case based on the circumstances of the incident rather than having direct proof of a product defect. 

For example, imagine if you bought a toy and, after a  few days of playing with the toy, it exploded and caused an injury. In this case, if you are unable to show direct proof of evidence of a manufacturing defect due to which the harm was suffered, then, in such situations, circumstantial evidence is used. Circumstantial evidence such as witness accounts, or the toys’ conditions after the explosion, can be used by the injured party as evidence to suggest that the product was faulty and caused harm.

• The duty of compliance with safety measures or regulations by the company for manufacturing a product.
• Liability of the product sellers from the harm caused by misrepresentation or fraud of a product
• Liability for failure to warn after sale by the company
• Liability for failure to recall after sale by the company.
• Liability of successors and the harm caused by the predecessors of corporations manufacturing a product.
• Comparative negligence 

Through this tort principle, the U.S. courts can reduce the amount of damages that the plaintiff has to recover under the negligent-based claim. The principle of comparative negligence compares each party’s fault for the incident and the harm that is caused for determining the recoverable damages. This is further discussed in detail under the heading comparative negligence– Restatement of Law Third Torts: Apportionment of Liability.

• Liability when sellers use different labels on a product of a third-party
• Liability due to extreme harm caused by defective products.

Different types of product liability claims

When you suffer an injury because of a product that is not safe in its use, there are different ways to make a company responsible for your injuries. This can be done through strict liability or negligence. In the former, the injured party does not need to prove that the company was careless, while in the latter, it is the exact opposite of this. The claims of product liability depend upon the different jurisdictions where the claim is based. This is because there is no federal product liability law. To encourage uniform procedures for the liability of products, the U.S. Department of Commerce enacted the MUPLA of 1980, which we previously discussed under the heading: Legal implications of the doctrine.

To get a claim of product liability, the injured party needs to prove to the court “what is the exact problem with the product along with that it inflicted injury.” This includes showing:

• Manufacturing defects.
• Design defects.
• Marketing defects (warning defects).
• Breach of warranty.

For example, imagine a scenario where you brought a toy for your child. While playing with the toy, your child suffered an injury. Now, how can you make a company liable for the injury to your child? To do this, you can file a lawsuit against the company based either on strict product liability or negligence. When a lawsuit is based on strict product liability, you only need to show that the product was unsafe and caused harm, such as when the sharp edge of the toy was the reason for the harm. There is no need to prove that the company was careless in manufacturing its product. 

On the other hand, when a lawsuit is based on negligence, you need to prove that the company was careless in manufacturing their product. You need to show that they were careless in following safety standards in the design and manufacturing of the toy. Apart from this, you will need to prove that the toy did not have a proper warning or instruction label. The company promised that the toy was safe in its use, but that was not the case, and the injury was suffered because of this reason. These are the claims of marketing defects and breach of warranty. 

Manufacturing defects

This is one of the simplest forms of defect. During the making of the product, when certain processes go wrong, the product turns out to be different than the rest of the product. This usually occurs at the assembly line where the different parts of the products are being made.

For example, suppose a bakery product, cake, turns out to be different than the rest of the cake that is made during that particular day. This occurs because someone might have added the wrong ingredients to that specific batch. Also, this batch of cake is unsafe to eat. Another example is when a car accident takes place because of malfunctioning brakes. There must be an error in making that specific batch of brakes in the assembly line. Also, because of this, the injury is suffered.

Design defects

The design defect was the major issue in product liability claims under the Restatement (Second) of Tort. A proper pathway to this was provided under the Restatement (Third) of Tort. According to this, when the whole design of the product is designed in such a way that it is considered to be dangerous in its use, it is considered to be a design defect or design flaw of the product. This is not a result of the manufacturing process. It is the result of individuals who initially came up with the idea of designing the product in such a way. It is inherent, meaning it existed before the product was made. For example, a medical device in use can break inside a human body, causing harm. 

These products are useful in their natural form, but their design is just risky. To prove this type of claim, the injured party would require the assistance of an expert to show why the design is considered unsafe. The claims for this differ from state to state. The injured party would also be required to show there is a better way to design these products, and it would not be expensive to do so.

Tests for determining design flaw

One interesting thing to note here is that even when there is a design flaw in the product, the company cannot be held responsible for such design defects. To determine the liability of the company, the court will make use of the ‘tests.’ These are known as:

• The risk-utility test: The company is not held responsible for the harm caused to consumers if the product is more useful in its applicability than it is risky in its design. This depends on the grave usefulness of the product. This was also rightly pointed out in the Restatement (Second) of Tort.

For example, a sports car has a design flaw that makes it less safe during crashes, but the car is specifically designed for racing purposes. It means that it is made to speed and not to be safe for its intended purposes.

• The consumer expectation test: The company is not held responsible for the harm caused to the consumers if, in their ordinary senses, they would not consider the product to be harmful when they are using it in its normal way (intended purposes). For example, if a blender has a design flaw but it still blends things well without causing any problems during its regular use, then the court considers the product not to be defective. 

Marketing defects (warning defects).

Marketing defects or warning or instructions label defects were also a major issue in product liability claims under the Restatement (Second) of Tort. According to this guidebook, when a company does not lay down the potential dangers of its products or how to safely use the products, then under such circumstances, when the injury is suffered, legal actions can be claimed against the company. This is also referred to as a ‘failure to warn.’ 

For example, a failure to warn consumers about the side effects of a medicine, a failure to warn consumers about the side effects of a harmful chemical used in households, etc. Here, also, the proof of injury that occurred needs to be shown because the company failed to warn its consumers about the probable dangers of their products.

Breach of warranty

A breach of warranty is also a legal claim an injured party can bring against the company. This is an uncommon form of claim and depends upon the buyer and the seller’s interactions. One can either replace the product or claim compensation. This type of claim is available in two forms:

Express breach of warranty: When a product has a written warranty attached to it and it fails to live up to its expectations, the victim can bring an action for express breach of warranty. For example, a warranty card with a mixer grinder or a manual for a gas stove forms the express warranty. 

Implied breach of warranty: The company does not mandatorily give out a written warranty with the product that is sold in the marketplace. This gives rise to the implied warranty policy. In this regard, the law of every state implies that the sold product should work correctly for its intended purpose. In the absence of such, the victim has a right to claim, especially when the seller knows why the buyer wanted that particular product.

Hodges case (product liability actions by an uninsured motorist)

Significance of the case

In Hodges v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1999), the scope of Section 3333.4- Damages for Wrongs of the Civil Code of California was clarified by the Supreme Court of California during product liability actions taken by the uninsured motorist.  

The uninsured motorist clause is a car insurance policy that covers damages for bodily injury to drivers as well as passengers. This clause is required in 20 states, including Columbia, U.S. On the other hand, Section 3333.4 provides conditions under which the injured party involved in a motor vehicle accident can recover damages. The injured party is barred from recovering non-economic losses based on the provisions of Section 3333.4.

The case clarified that the primary goal of Section 3333.4 was not to set recovery limits in product liability actions. The goal of this Section was to address issues related to uninsured motorists and insurance claims. 

Facts of the case

• In 1995, Benjamin Hodges was driving a 1967 Ford Mustang. This car was borrowed and was uninsured by the owner. Even Hodges did not have automobile insurance. 
• There was another car coming at great speed from the opposite side. The rear end of the Mustang collided with that car. 
• The collision led to the rupture of the gas tank of the Mustang, causing an explosion.
• Benjamin Hodges suffered an injury because of this reason. The body was subjected to second and third-degree burns, with over 26% of the body injured.
• Benjamin Hodges initiated a lawsuit against the Ford company for personal injury by alleging that the gas tank of the 1967 Ford Mustang was defective in design.
• The lawsuit was filed for compensatory damages along with punitive damages.
• Ford alleged that Benjamin Hodges, being an uninsured motorist, does not have a claim under Section 3333.4 of the Civil Code of California. (Damages for non-economic losses in action arising out of operation or use of motor vehicles)

Issues involved in the case

Whether Section 3333.4 of the Civil Code of California applies to a product liability action for injury against Ford caused by a design defect or not 

Judgment of the Court

The Supreme Court of California stated that when an uninsured motorist brings an action for an injury caused by a design defect, it does not limit the damages (compensation). This means uninsured motorists can ask for more money when a company makes a faulty car. In such situations, the limit on damages in Section 3333.4 of the Code does not apply to product liability.

The Court stated that Section 3333.4 of the Code’s intention is to put a limit on automobile insurance claims (how much money can be asked by an uninsured motorist during accident cases) to ensure fairness for insured drivers. 

This section 3333.4 of the Code was not intended for product liability claims against the automobile manufacturer when bought by an uninsured motorist.

Basic limitations on liability

In the product liability law, there are certain limitations on liability where the manufacturer or company cannot be held responsible for the injury caused to consumers because of their products. The limitations include:

• Foreseeability.
• Obvious dangers.
• Product misuse and dangers.
• Inherent product dangers

Foreseeability 

During the Restatement (Second) of Torts, many courts made the manufacturer responsible for the defects in the products by applying the strict liability rule. The companies were made responsible, even when they were unable to foresee the risks associated with their products. There was a significant change brought about by cases of the years 1984 and 1998 under this regime, with the Restatement (Third) of Torts being in development. The companies involved in this case were mostly pharmaceutical companies. Let us understand this through the following cases. 

In Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories (1989), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, held that companies cannot be held responsible for the events of harm that they cannot predict and prevent. The case deals with the complex issue of product liability law. It explains the necessity of the duty to warn, the necessity of compliance with the regulatory standards, and on whom the burden of proof falls for the damages. 

In this case, the plaintiff, Carol Ann Feldman, suffered side effects from the prescription drug known as tetracycline. It is a drug treatment for the teeth she took from 1960 to 1963. During the treatment, the plaintiff’s teeth turned from white to gray. The plaintiff argued that she did not know about the side effects until 1962. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that they warned about the risks; therefore, they cannot be held liable for unavoidable risks.

A similar verdict was given in the case of Brown v. Superior Court (2004) by the Court of Appeal of California, Third Circuit. The Court did not follow the rule of strict liability and stated that it was necessary to blame the manufacturer in cases where they were negligent (careless), but not in cases where the product was unsafe and the duty to warn was carried out responsibly. This reason was provided by the court because, in their opinion, if lawsuits like this occur more frequently against the manufacturer, they might entirely stop making or selling new medicines. The companies can even hike the prices of such medicines that are needed for dire needs, and people might not be able to afford such medicines later on. In this case, the Court decided on the claims of 69 children who suffered harm before they were even born. Their moms took a prescription drug known as DES, which had harmful substances responsible for causing cancer.

This idea was widely adopted and applied by the courts to all producers or manufacturers. When it came to product liability cases for precipitation drugs and medical devices, the courts were of the view that companies could not be strictly held liable for the harm. They use a negligent or fault-based approach. This is because such devices or drugs are extremely helpful, even if these products are unavoidably unsafe and could have made the product safer for use. The strict liability approach was only reserved for manufacturing defects or when stores were responsible for selling such defective products, even when the Restatement (Third) of Torts came into play. 

Obvious dangers

During the Restatement (Second) of Torts, some courts also believed that companies should not be held responsible for the injuries caused to consumers because of the obvious dangers of their products. This is because warnings in such situations are not required when the danger is visible to the public. When the situation is of design complexity for obvious dangers, courts use the tests (as discussed under the heading Design defects) to determine the liability of a manufacturer. In Vincer v. Ester Williams All-Aluminium Swimming Pool (1975) the Supreme Court of Wisconsin provided a similar judgment. 

In this case, a two-year-old boy named Curt Vincer was injured because of a swimming pool that was built above ground level. This pool consisted of a ladder that could be pushed back inside the pool. This incident took place while Curt was at his grandparents and was left unsupervised. Curt climbed down this ladder inside the pool and suffered brain damage as he was lying there for quite some time. The plaintiff argued that the company should have built a gate block to prevent such accidents. However, the court decided in favor of the company. This idea of not making the companies responsible for the injuries caused to the consumers because of the obvious dangers of their products is now widely accepted in the Restatement (Third) of Torts. 

Product misuse and alteration

During the Restatement (Second) of Torts, some courts also believed that companies should not be held responsible for the injuries caused to consumers because they misused the products. It means consumers are not using the products for their intended purposes. This is because even though manufacturers have to take reasonable precautions against the uses of their product that they can predict, they do not have a duty to protect against the uses that are not predictable. Also, when the injured party is partly to blame for the injuries caused because of the product, the liability of the company is reduced. This idea is also now widely accepted in the Restatement (Third) of Torts. 

For example, you bought a toaster for your house. Its intended use is to toast the bread. In case you used the toaster to dry paper towels or stuck a fork in the toaster while it was on. Injuries are suffered by you because you used the toaster in such ways that are not predictable. In such situations, the court will not hold the company liable for the injuries suffered by you. This is because the toaster was not used for its intended purposes. You are partly responsible for the injuries that you have suffered because of the unusual use of the toaster.

Inherent product dangers

During the Restatement (Second) of Torts, many courts were torn between the reasonability of whether to make the manufacturer liable for the injuries caused to consumers because of inherent product dangers or not. This is because such product designs or warnings outweighed the usefulness of the products. For example, kitchen knives and kitchen chemicals. Even though they are dangerous in their designs, they are widely used as a common material in the kitchen.

Some other examples include marshmallows, alcohol, cigarettes, and cheap handguns. There were debates in society regarding whether to consider such products to be inherently defective or not. This is because manufacturers were simply supplying these products in exchange for the demand created in the marketplace. Some courts believed that such companies could not be held responsible for the harm caused because of the use of such products.

In Emery v. Federated Foods Inc.,(1993) the Supreme Court of Montana provided a similar judgment in a case where a marshmallow got stuck inside a child’s throat. The Court stated that such dangers are common and are an inherent part of a product design that cannot be taken away. Therefore, companies cannot be held liable for the injuries resulting from the use of such products. In this case, Laura Emery bought her two children a large bag of marshmallows, scanning the label before making her choice. With her consent, she provided those marshmallows. One of the children, unsupervised, took the marshmallow and choked because of the product. He suffered severe brain damage. A case was filed based on the product being defective and dangerous for the consumers to consume. The majority of the courts rejected when claims were brought for such products. 

However, this very idea in the Restatement (Third) of Torts states that courts should make the manufacturer liable in extreme cases and should not judge the desirability of such products. Therefore, this part of the decision still varies from court to court.

Another case is Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007) whereby the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the company to pay punitive and compensatory damages of $28 billion and $850,000 respectively. A woman filed a lawsuit against the company because she suffered lung cancer. She claimed that the company failed to warn through their products about the risks of smoking. This caused tobacco addiction in her, and smoking cigarettes from the company resulted in lung cancer.

Restatements of Law Third, Torts : Apportionment of Liability (2000)

Many states in the U.S. were torn between a challenge on how to divide responsibility when someone intentionally causes harm as compared to when the harm is caused because someone was negligent. To solve this issue, the ALI presented Restatement (Third) of Tort: Apportionment of Liability (2000). It covers all the simplified legal rules related to liability laws. This part of the series describes the laws to determine who is responsible for the harm. It means who is responsible for causing the harm intentionally versus who is responsible for causing the harm negligently when two or more parties of plaintiff and defendant are involved in a case of dispute. This series determines the liability of each party involved in the incident for causing harm. It deals with how to divide the fault or responsibility in personal injury cases, no matter what caused the harm.

This second part of the Restatement (Third) of Torts also covers situations where someone intentionally causes harm in which responsibility is shared. This means that even if the harm is done on purpose by more than one individual in a situation, this Restatement makes sure to consider how much one person is responsible for the liability of the situation. For example, imagine a situation where there are three individuals involved in a car accident. This accident was caused purposefully. The apportionment of liability will consider how much each individual is responsible for causing the car accident. 

Apportionment of liability simply covers comparative negligence and joint and several liability. This guidebook is important in deciding cases when there are different levels of fault and claims that come from other people’s actions, or when there are different accused involved for doing different things in one single case. 

The creation of this guidebook was necessary because many places adopted the rule of comparative liability. It means a system was created where courts started to compare how much a single person is liable for a problem. This guidebook also replaced comparative provisions of the Restatement (Second) of Tort and provided a more detailed view of who to make liable for a particular problem that arises in disputed cases. 

What is negligence 

Negligence occurs when a reasonable individual is not as careful as he/she would be in a regular situation, in doing something or in not doing something (legal duty to act). This is an important aspect of tort law. To assess whether an individual was negligent in his/her actions, the court looks at the following things:

• Whether they thought that their actions might cause harm or not.
• Whether they thought that their actions could cause severe harm or not.
• Whether they took steps in preventing the harm from their actions or not. 

To prove the negligence of an individual, the court considers the following parameters:

• The legal duty of a person (defendant) toward another person (plaintiff).
• Breach of duty by the defendant.
• Injury caused to the plaintiff.
• Whether the person’s actions were the direct cause of harm to another person or not.
• Whether the person’s actions were the main reason for harm to the plaintiff or not.

Contributory negligence

The rule of contributory negligence is very strict in its applicability. According to this rule, if a person suffers injury because of his/her negligence, even if it’s a little, then this rule does not allow the injured party to recover damages from the accused. Here, even though the majority of the fault for causing injury is on the accused, the injured party still cannot recover damages. Very few states in the U.S. follow this rule, such as Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia. 

This rule first appeared in the case of Butterfield v. Forrester (1809) whereby, according to the common law rule, the injured party responsible for causing the accident was not liable to recover money from the other person. It was also known as the ‘all or nothing’ rule. This rule made it hard for the cases where severe injuries were involved. This is because in such cases, the blame was not allowed to be shared by the parties at fault. In this case, the injured party was thrown off the horse and later got struck by a pole. The pole was placed by the accused for some repairs to his house. The Kings Bench Court stated that the injured party could not recover money from the accused because the injured party did not take reasonable care to avoid the obstruction.

This rule simply means that even if you are minorly blameless and you suffered an injury, you are not liable to recover any money from the other party who was at majority fault for causing the injury to you. 

Comparative negligence

After a while, many U.S. courts were not satisfied with the rule of contributory negligence. This is because, in the opinion of such courts, this rule was unfair and unbiased, i.e., to place all the fault on an injured party where even the accused shared some part of the blame for the harm suffered. To solve such a problem, the rule of comparative negligence was adopted. This rule was widely accepted between the years 1969 and 1984. Now, in almost every state in the U.S., this principle is applied. 

This is an important tort principle used by the courts in deciding cases of negligent claims. When the person who suffered an injury and the person who caused the injury share some amount of blame, then under such situations, the court reduces the amount of damages that is to be recovered by the injured party. The court will assess the negligence of each party because of which the incident or harm took place. It can also be the injured party as well. This is because there might be some instances where the injured party suffered harm because of his/her negligence. 

For example, if a defendant’s (accused) fault is 60% for causing a car accident and the plaintiff (injured party) is also responsible for causing the car accident to a degree of 40%, then under such situations, the plaintiff has a right to recover only 60% of the damages from the accused for which the accident and injuries are caused. 

The remaining 40% of the damages are reduced by the courts. This is because the plaintiff is also 40% responsible for causing the car accident and the injuries that are suffered to him/her because of his/her negligence in driving the car.  In comparative negligence, the degree of percentage of fault is used to calculate the damages that the plaintiff can recover from the accused party. In this scenario, the defendant is ordered to compensate only 60% of the damages, the rest 40% of the burden falls on the injured party.

Comparative negligence is also further divided into two types.

Pure comparative negligence

Under this situation, if the injured party is at fault for the majority of the harm they suffered, the court still, through the pure comparative negligence rule, allows the injured party to recover compensation from the accused party. The accused’s fault is very minor for the injury suffered to the injured party in such cases. For example, if the injured party suffered 99% of the harm because of his/her negligence and the accused party’s fault was only 1%, then under such circumstances, the injured party is allowed to receive compensation. 

This kind of pure comparative negligence rule is followed by most of the U.S. States such as California, Florida, and New York.

Modified comparative negligence:

This rule is also known as the “50% bar rule and 51% bar rule.” Under this, if the injured party’s negligence is 50% or more and 51% or more because of which they suffered the harm as compared to the accused’s fault, then the injured party is not allowed to recover damages or compensation from the accused party.

Supporters of modified comparative negligence theory reject the applications of pure comparative negligence because they believe that such a rule is not fair in its applicability. This is because if the injury is caused because of the plaintiff’s majority fault, pure comparative negligence allows such an injured party to recover the money from the defendant, who is less responsible for the injury that they suffered and caused.

In Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co. (1979), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia rejected the principle of pure comparative negligence and favored the theory of modified comparative negligence. The Court stated that the idea of pure comparative negligence was not fair in its applicability. This is because if the majority party at fault, who caused the injury, sues or brings a lawsuit against the party who was less responsible for the injuries, then such a rule does not serve the purpose of fair justice. Such a rule benefits the injured party whose injuries are very severe and are also caused because of his/her fault. This can lead to unnecessary and expensive lawsuits. 

West case (comparative negligence rejection)

Significance of the case

In West v. Caterpillar Tractor Company, Inc. (1977), the United States Courts of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, after the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida, decided to adopt the principle of strict liability from the Restatement (Second) of Torts. 

The case clarified that comparative negligence cannot be used as a defense when the action is poised under strict liability in torts under Florida law.

The West case was tried by various jurisdictions in the years 1977, 1976, and 1974. The case of 1977 was tried by the United States Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit based on the appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The case of 1976 was tried by the Supreme Court of Florida and the case of 1974 was tried by the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

The case of the West is also very prominent in the realm of product liability law in the USA under Restatement (Third) of Torts. 

Facts of the case

• Caterpillar Tractor Company Inc. was in the business of designing and manufacturing a construction machine called Caterpillar Grader in Florida.
• Gwendolyn West, on the other hand, a victim of this case, while waiting for a bus and crossing the street to catch the bus in Miami, Florida, was hit by this construction machine. This incident took the life of the victim in the hospital after six days.
• A case was filed by Leon West (husband) on behalf of the victim against the Caterpillar Tractor Company Inc. (the grader manufacturer) and Houdaille Industries (the grader operator) on charges of negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty. 
• The case was brought to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff alleged that Gwendolyn West died due to the grader being manufactured poorly and lacking proper safety measures. The plaintiff alleged that the grader was designed negligently. There was an absence of safety features such as an audible warning system, adequate rear-view mirrors, and blind spot creation due to the design flaw of the machine.
• Caterpillar Tractor Company argued that comparative negligence was not a defense to strict liability under Floria Law. The company also presented a piece of evidence, showing Gwendolyn West was partly responsible for the incident. From the evidence it appeared that Gwendolyn West crossed the path of the grader, looking into her purse while it was working in reverse. Gwendolyn West also did not check the oncoming moving traffic from the right.
• The jury heard the case and decided that Caterpillar Tractor Company was responsible for the death of the victim. However, Gwendolyn West was also held partially responsible for the incident. Gwendolyn West’s negligence contributed to 35% of the incident.

Issues involved in the case

• Whether strict liability and implied warranty apply to bystander’s actions in Florida or not (1977).
• Whether comparative negligence (both parties in dispute are responsible) is constituted as a defense to strict liability and breach of warranty in Florida or not (1977).
• Whether strict liability in tort is recognized in Florida or not (1976).
• Whether the Caterpillar Tractor Company can be held liable for the death of G. West due to defective design of a product (breach of manufacturer warranty) separate from the strict liability or not (1974).

Judgment of the Court

• The case of the year 1977: The United States Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, based on the appeal from the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida stated that comparative negligence is deemed or recognized as a defense when the question is of strict liability and implied warranty claims. However, comparative negligence cannot be deemed or recognized as a defense when the negligence occurred due to both the party’s fault (comparative negligence). This is because strict liability is recognized as a tort in Florida law.
• The case of the year 1976: strict liability is considered a tort was established by the Supreme Court of Florida under the West v. Caterpillar Inc.(1976). The United States Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, based on the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida clarified its position of strict liability and implied warranty applications to bystanders’ actions in Florida law and stated strict liability applies to bystanders’ actions but strict liability implied warranty does not apply. The Supreme Court of Florida also stated that comparative negligence can be used as a defense to both of these torts, i.e., to strict liability and implied breach of warranty. Hence, establishing strict liability to be a tort under Florida Law.
• The case of the year 1974: As affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit during the trial of the case in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida, the court ruled in favor of Leon West and stated that the company was liable for the death of Gwendolyn West based on the breach of the manufacturer’s warranty and the strict liability. The court awarded damages of $90,000 based on strict liability.

Joint and several liability

A joint and several liability means that in case an individual suffers an injury because of another person’s fault, then the injured party has a right to sue any of the accused responsible for the injuries. The injured party also has a right to recover money from all the accused who are involved and responsible for causing the harm. One party involves several defendants and several plaintiffs. 

Applicability of the rule before the year 2000

During the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the principle of joint and several liability applied only to those cases where the accused worked with an accomplice to cause harm or injury to the other person. This means one defendant is working with just one other defendant. However, this rule gradually developed with the rule of comparative negligence. With both the rules at play in some cases, it was not helpful when one of the accused responsible for causing the injury did not have any money or insurance. This is because the accused party, who was more wealthy than the other accused, had to bear the compensation.

This situation was highlighted in the case of Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood (1987), whereby a woman was injured at Disney World because of the fault of her fiance. The fiance rammed his miniature race car into the woman during a grand prix attraction. The Supreme Court of Florida stated that the woman’s fault was 14%, the fiance’s fault was 85%, and Disney’s World was at 1% fault. Here, two parties were at fault; one was the woman’s fiance, and the other was Disney World. The Court ordered Disney World (a wealthy party) to pay 86% of the damages to the woman and was also not allowed to recover the money from the woman’s fiance. The presence of this situation made many states reconsider the need of urgency to change the rules regarding joint and several liability, as it was considered unfair and unjust.

Applicability of the rule after the year 2000

Today, under the second part of Restatement (Third) of Tort, joint and several liability have a whole new applicability when making someone liable for the injuries they caused. 

According to the joint and several liability rules, when there are two or more parties involved in committing a wrongful act. These two or more parties are jointly and severally liable for the injuries they caused. These parties are also independently liable to the full extent for all the injuries they caused. In simpler terms, when multiple people are responsible for causing harm, each one of them is held responsible for all the injuries from their actions.

For example, B caused injuries to A by hitting with bats. A files a lawsuit against B for recovery of money for the injuries There were several defendants involved with B for causing injury to A. Here, A wins a money judgment against B. In such cases, A has a right to recover money from B collectively. A can also recover money from any of the accused involved with B. In such a situation, B seeks contributions from other accused/wrongdoers. The concept of choosing any one of the wrongdoers to recover money for the injuries is also known as an indivisible injury. 

Another example is suppose A, B, and C injured V. The injury was caused because they were negligent. V successfully sues all of these wrongdoers for $ 2,000,000. When the court applies the rule of joint and several liability, then, in such cases, V can recover the full amount from A of $ 2,000,000. A could then demand B and C to give contributions for that full amount. If, in cases where B and C are unable to contribute, then the whole liability to pay the amount falls on B.

What are the different types of joint and several liabilities

There are four different types of joint and several liability rules and these include

• Risk and liability reduction.
• Market share liability.
• The doctrine of alternative liability.
• Preempted causes.

Risk and liability reduction

The principle of joint and several liability reduces the risk of the injured party in terms of when the injured party has to recover money from the accused. The principle of joint and several liability also reduces the liability of the accused, when there is more than one accused involved for causing injury. However, this rule creates inequalities for the innocent accused party in terms of when the other accused involved (gravely liable and guilty) are unable to contribute the money of compensation. The whole burden of compensation then falls on one single less innocent accused. In such situations, the court uses different methods and modes to recover money from such accused and solve the problem arising from this issue. This method is also known as risk and liability reduction. 

In Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer (2003), the issue of risk and liability reduction came forth the light. The Supreme Court of Virginia stated that when two wrongdoers are involved in one single accident, then liability for paying compensation is reduced for both the wrongdoers. The case involved two negligent drivers for causing a car accident. According to this rule, the court also has a right to reduce the liability for either one of the wrongdoers. This method is applied in cases where the court is unable to decide which wrongdoer is more responsible and to what degree for the cause of the accident.

Market share liability

The market share liability rule is applied in cases when the goods available in the marketplace cause injury to the consumers. Here, also various manufacturers of the goods are involved. This rule is applied in cases where the court is unable to decide which goods of the manufacturer caused the harm. The Court makes such manufacturers liable according to the market share value of the goods in the marketplace.

This rule was first discovered and developed in the case of Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (1980). The Supreme Court of California stated that each manufacturer was equally responsible and liable to pay compensation for the injuries caused because of the use of their product. Depending upon the value of the market share of a company, when such a harmful product is used, accordingly such a company will pay the compensation amount. The Court stated that if the involved companies prove that their product could not have caused the harm, then such a company was exempted from the liability.

Alternative liability

The rule of alternative liability is used in those cases, where the injured party is unable to determine which accused is responsible for the injuries. Under this, each independent wrongdoer is made responsible and liable for the injuries. This occurs when the court can determine which accused is responsible. The burden of proof falls on the accused to either prove their innocence or to divide the blame among themselves (to prove each other fault). This rule does not apply in cases where the injury is caused because of the conspiracy of the accused involved in a wrongful act. This is because in such situations, both accused are held equally liable, despite who caused the incident.

This rule of alternative liability was first developed in the case of Summers v. Tice (1948). It was decided by the Supreme Court of California. In this case, both accused pleaded non-guilty on the basis that they did not conspire. They even failed to prove each other fault and their independent innocence. The Court based on the carelessness of both the accused, decided them to be guilty of the harm and made each liable for the compensation.

Preempted causes

This rule was developed in the case of Dillon v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co.(1932). The case was decided by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. It is also known as a doomed plaintiff rule. The case involved a boy who was riding a bicycle through the bridge. During this, he fell from the bridge. To make himself steady, the boy held a nearby electric pole and got electrocuted. The Court stated that since the boy would have died when he fell from the bridge, the other electric company cannot be made liable for the injuries. The Court, however, stated the company to pay minor compensation for the pain suffered by the boy due to electrocution. 

Benefits of the apportionment of liability approach

• The apportionment of liability provides a better solution for the states in solving cases where intentional and negligent actions are compared during liability.
• It acknowledges the importance of comparing the fault of the person who was harmed with that of the person who was causing harm. 
• It is helpful because, under this Restatement, someone who intentionally causes harm cannot use another person’s fault as an excuse to pay less compensation for a serious injury.
• It recognizes the rights of an injured party involving cases where situations of both negligence and intentional harm took place.

Restatements of Law Third, Torts: Liability for Physical Harm and Emotional Harm (2010/2012).

According to the ALI, the Restatement (Third) of Tort: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm (2010/2012) covers all the simplified fundamental legal rules related to injuries that are caused due to unintentional actions. This part of the series tried to make the negligence law much clearer and to prevent any inconsistencies that arise in the court of law. It also strikes a balance between the roles of judges and juries in negligence cases. 

When unintentional actions cause personal injuries, damage to property, or emotional distress to others, then the rules of this guidebook are referred to for better understanding by the courts. This guidebook replaced comparable provisions of the Restatement (Second) of Tort and provided a more detailed view in that regard. 

Earlier, under the heading Restatement (Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability: Negligence, we discussed the meaning of negligence and its different forms. So let us now discuss the key elements of negligence in detail that are provided in the third part of Restatement of Law Third, Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm (2010/2012). 

Volume 1 of this part was published in the year 2010. It covers liability for intentional physical harm and negligence causing physical harm, duty, strict liability, factual cause, and scope of liability. 

Volume 2 of this part was published in the year 2012. It covers affirmative duties, emotional harm, landowner liability, and liability of individuals who retain independent contractors.

Elements in negligence cases under liability for physical and emotional harm

The five key elements in negligence cases under liability for physical and emotional harm include:

• Duty to care and factual elements.
• Breach of duty.
• Factual cause.
• Physical harm.
• Harm within the scope of liability.

Duty to care and factual elements

Every society consists of an unspoken rule to not cause harm to others. There is always a duty to act reasonably. When there is a disputed case of negligence, the court assesses whether one party has a legal duty to exercise reasonable care towards the other party or not. To assess the duty, the court will consider the following things:

• Risk created: any wrongful act conducted by one party that created risk and resulted in harm to the other party or not.
• Voluntarily offered duty: One party voluntarily offered to help and protect the other party, even if it was not his/her job. Such acts create a duty to be reasonable and careful toward the other party. It also prevents third parties from helping or protecting.
• Knowledge: One party was aware that their conduct would harm the other party, or one party should have known how their actions would impact the other party.
• Voluntary or business relationship: Some roles or relationships create conduct of duty to care for the other party voluntarily and mandatorily. Such relationships include business owners and customers, houseguests and housekeepers, landlords, and tenants.

Breach of duty 

To determine whether there was a breach of a legal duty by one party (the defendant) toward the other party (the plaintiff), the courts use the formula known as the Hand formula. This test or formula was developed by the Judge Learned Hand, Circuit Judge, in the case of United States v. Carroll Towing Co. (1947). This case was decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. 

The Burden of taking precautions is less than the probability of loss multiplied by the severity of loss (B<PL)

The formula states that if one party’s burden of taking precautions is less than the probability of loss multiplied by the severity of loss toward the other party, then the party taking the burden committed a breach of duty to care. 

The formula signifies as B<PL.

• B = Burden of taking precautions.
• P = Probability of loss (chances of injury).
• L = Severity of loss (chances of severe injury).

For example, a company owning a parking lot near a busy road must keep the parking lot safer for its customers. For safety, the company installs a barrier to prevent accidents; thus the cost (burden) of taking precautions on the company owning a parking lot is lower. If the parking lot is safer, the number of accidents happening in the parking lot is relatively low. In cases where accidents occur, the severity of the injury is also lower, such as resulting only in dents and scratches. Therefore, by using the hand formula, we can conclude that 

• B = Burden of taking precautions (installing a barrier is low).
• P = Probability of loss (injury) (chances of accidents are lower).
• L = Severity of loss (injury) (chances of injury are lower).

Thus, since B is lesser than P and L, the company has breached its duty to take care by not installing the barriers to prevent accidents in the parking lot.

The burden of taking precautions is more than the probability of loss multiplied by the severity of loss (B>PL)

The formula states that if one party’s burden of taking precautions is more than the probability of loss multiplied by the severity of loss toward the other party, then the party taking the burden did not commit a breach of duty to care. In simple language, if the cost, or burden of taking the precautions is greater than the expected value of the loss multiplied by the severity of the loss, then the party is not considered negligent. 

The formula signifies as B>PL.

• B = Burden of taking precautions.
• P = Probability of loss (chances of injury).
• L = Severity of loss (chances of injury).

For example, imagine you and your friend are playing basketball in your backyard. One day you notice that there is a big hole in the ground that could be dangerous for both of you while you seem to play in the backyard. Noticing this, either you have one of the two options. Either you fill the hole with mud by taking the greater burden and fulfilling your duty to care or either you do not fill the hole with mud and let your friend suffer an injury.

In this scenario, you do not fill the hole with mud as the burden of taking precautions is higher i.e., you investing your time and money. You leave the hole as it is (unfulfilled) presuming you or your friend may or may not suffer an injury.

• B = Burden of taking precautions (filling the hole with mud, which costs a bit of money and time) (burden is higher).
• P = Probability of loss (injury) (chances your friend might accidentally step into the hole while playing are lower).
• L = Severity of loss (injury) (chances your friend might suffer potential injury if they fell into the hole is lower).

Thus, since B is greater than P and L, you are still considered to have fulfilled your duty to take care of your friend, even though your friend suffered an injury. This is because the chances of suffering an injury by your friend multiplied by the chances of suffering the severity of the injury by your friend are lower and the cost of you filling the hole with mud is higher. In situations like this, the court presumes that you took adequate safety measures in your capacity to avert any kind of injury and considers you to be non-negligent. 

The Burden of taking precautions is equal to the probability of loss multiplied by the severity of loss (B=PL).

The formula states that if one party’s burden of taking precautions is equal to the probability of loss multiplied by the severity of loss toward the other party, then the party taking the burden did not commit a breach of duty to care. 

The formula signifies as B= PL.

• B = Burden of taking precautions.
• P = Probability of loss (chances of injury).
• L = Severity of loss (changes of severe injury).

For example, imagine you are playing catch with your friend in your backyard using a water balloon. For safety, you took adequate measures of not throwing the water balloon too hard or too close toward your friend. You made sure your grip around the water balloon was good with a careful aim. Despite this, there are chances that the water balloon might burst unexpectedly or that the water balloon might hit your friend too hard and make him/her wet.

In this situation, despite you taking adequate measures the water balloon burst unexpectedly causing your friend to get wet. However, since the chances of the probability of loss multiplied by the severity of the loss are equal to the burden of taking precautions, you are considered to be non-negligent for the injuries that are caused to your friend. 

• B = Burden of taking precautions (not throwing the water balloon too hard, too close, or maintaining your grip with careful aim was equal).
• P = Probability of loss (injury) (chances of accidents i.e., water balloon bursting unexpectedly was equal).
• L = Severity of loss (injury) (chances of injury i.e., water balloon hitting your friend and making him/her wet was equal). 

Thus, since B is equal to P and L, you did not breach your duty to take care in preventing accidents in your backyard.

Physical harm

To determine physical or emotional harm, the court will assess what is the kind of harm that is caused to the other party. It can either be bodily, property (personal or real property), or emotional distress (mental). Only a few states in the U.S. acknowledge the harm of a mental nature, such as the state of Minnesota. 

Factual cause or proximate cause

The element of factual or proximate cause states that to determine the liability of the defendant, it is necessary to prove whether the defendant’s action is directly the cause of the harm that is suffered to the plaintiff or not. To figure this thing out, the court further determined whether the defendant saw it coming or not. It means whether the defendant pre-calculated the injury from his/her actions or not.

For example, imagine a scenario where you are on the rooftop of a four-story building. While playing on the rooftop with a rock, you throw the rock off the building without checking if someone is below the ground or not. If your rock causes harm to the person standing below the ground, then you become the proximate cause of the injury to the other person. Why? This is because you should have known that throwing such a rock from such a height could have caused harm or injury to another person down below the building.

If there are other factors at play for causing harm to the plaintiff despite the defendant’s actions, then in such a situation, the defendant’s action is not considered the main cause of harm. The defendant is also not held liable or guilty of causing harm to the plaintiff. Other factors include the risky behavior of the plaintiff or the involvement of a third party with the plaintiff, making the situation worse than before.

But-for-cause test

This element is one of the easiest to prove to determine the liability of a party for physical and emotional harm. It is also known as but-for-causation or cause-in-fact. This is a pre-required element to prove the liability, and that too in combination with a factual or proximate cause. In the absence of either of those, the court cannot prove the liability of the party that caused the injury. It is also the last thing the court adopts to determine the liability of a party for physical and emotional harm. The but-for test asks, “But for the existence of X, would Y have occurred?” 

For example, imagine a scenario where you are playing baseball catch with a friend outside your house. Now, because of your poor throwing skills, a baseball hits the window of a nearby house and breaks the glass window. To figure out whether you are liable or responsible for the wrongful act of breaking the glass window, the court will consider the but-for-test. In this test, the court will determine the question, “Would the glass window have broken if you did not throw the baseball in the first place?” If the answer is no, meaning if you wouldn’t have thrown the ball, the window would not have broken, then your action of throwing the ball is considered to be the cause-in-fact of the broken window.

This means that if your actions kick off a series of events that end up causing harm to another, and those events would not have even occurred if you did not do something in the first place, then you become the cause-in-fact of the harm to the other person. In simpler terms, your first cause of action is creating a chain of events (three or four harmful events), which in turn leads to causing harm to another person.

Separation of key elements of physical and emotional harm for negligence cases.

Under the liability for physical harm and emotional harm for negligence cases, this part of the series separates

• Foreseeability from duty.
• Foreseeability from the proximate cause.

What is the basis of the separation of foreseeability from duty and proximate cause

The separation of foreseeability from duty and foreseeability from proximate cause is based on how the cases of negligence are analyzed by the courts. For this, the two key aspects are being distinguished. The first is to figure out if harm was something that could have been foreseen and the second is to determine if that foreseeability harm is directly connected to the negligent act or not. 

How the factors of duty and proximate cause are separated from foreseeability

When the court talks about the factor of duty being separated from foreseeability, the court tries to determine a simple question. Could a reasonably sound person have been able to see that their actions might cause potential harm to others? This helps the courts to decide if there is a general responsibility of that person to prevent harm or not. This step is all about figuring out if there is a duty to prevent harm in a general sense.

When the court talks about the factor of proximate cause being separated from foreseeability, the court digs deeper. The Court tries to know and determine if the actual harm that occurred was a direct result of the initial negligent act or not. The separation of this factor is all about examining the specific link between careless behavior and the resulting harm. It focuses on how closely they are connected with each other. This step is all about figuring out the specific connection between negligent actions and the harm that occurred.

O’Neil’s case (When to hold a manufacturer liable)

Significance of the case

In the case of O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012), the scope of strict product liability was clarified by the Supreme Court of California. It made a prominent change in establishing when the manufacturer can be held liable for injuries that are associated with their products, i.e., injuries caused by defective products of third parties in association with primary products

The case established that the manufacturer cannot be held liable under the rules of strict product liability when injuries are caused because of third-party products used in conjunction with their products. For this, it is also necessary to ensure that the accident was not a result of the primary product of the manufacturer.

The case set a precedent by not making the manufacturer strictly liable for the products that caused harm or injury to victims over which they do not have any control or responsibility.

Facts of the case

• In the year 1940, the Crane Co. (defendant) supplied and manufactured valves (equipment that regulates the flow of liquid) for the Navy. This equipment was used on Navy ships for a steam propulsion system.
• For this, the Navy also required the use of asbestos (minerals resistant to heat and corrosion) gaskets to attach them to the inside of the valves, and the outside of the valve was covered using asbestos insulation.
• This material was unnecessary for the functioning of the valves; however, the Navy used such insulating materials.
• Lt. Patrik O’Neil, on the other hand, was a merchant navy working on the ship during the year 1960s. However, by that time, the Navy replaced the asbestos supplied by Crane Co. with that of asbestos supplied by third parties.
• After almost 10 years, Lt. Patrik O’Neil’s family sued the defendant, alleging that because of the exposure to asbestos from the valves, O’neil suffered injuries during his tenure.

Issues involved in the case

• Whether the manufacturer (Crane Co.) could be held liable for injuries suffered by the victim (O’Neil) because of the asbestos use (sold by the third parties) with their products or not.
• Whether the doctrine of strict product liability applies to the products that are not sold by the defendant but were used with their products or not.

Judgment of the Court

The Supreme Court of California rejected the decision given by the Court of Appeal. According to the Court of Appeal, the manufacturer can be held liable for the injuries when third-party products foreseeably are used in relation to the primary products of the manufacturer i.e., asbestos used with valves. 

However, the Supreme Court of California stated that the Court of Appeal unnecessarily stretched the rules of strict product liability about when to make a company liable for their products during injuries. 

The Court stated that warning the companies about the dangers of the products that the company primarily did not make or sell would amount to an unfair practice. Also, foreseeability is an important factor in such cases but is not a sufficient cause to make a manufacturer or a company liable (not sufficient to impose strict product liability).

The Court stated that injury is an essential ingredient for imposing strict product liability; however, when the injury is inflicted entirely because of another product of a manufacturer or supplier, then under such circumstances, a different manufacturer or supplier cannot be made liable. 

Restatements of Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm (2020)

There is always a duty of care or responsibility that one has to take and inculcate into their life when they are about to do something. This is because one wrongful act can be the reason for which someone might suffer physical harm or injury. Such wrongful acts of an individual or an entity toward others have a bigger impact when it comes to financial losses. When such accidents cause economic harm or economic loss to others, the rules regarding those are much stricter in tort law. To be responsible for economic harm, one also needs a specific reason. Therefore, this fourth part of the third series describes the principal duties and the rules of limitations that accompany them. 

The Restatement (Third) of Tort: Liability for Economic Harm (2020) covers all the simplified fundamental legal rules related to the four main principles of tort law. These include

• Unintentional infliction of economic loss: This principle is used for determining liability in cases of negligence, leading to economic losses.
• Liability for fraud: This principle is used in cases where intentional cheating or misrepresentation results in economic harm, initiating liability for dishonest actions.
• Interface with economic interests: This principle is used to guide how liability is determined in the economic losses, resulting from economic relationships and interactions between the parties in disputes. It provides a legal framework surrounding these interactions between the parties that impact economic interests. 
• Misuse of legal procedure: This principle outlines and offers guidance on liability in cases about the wrongful use or wrongful abuse of the legal procedure. 

The part also covers other areas of tort law, such as:

• Professional negligence: This area of tort law deals with the legal standards and liability of professionals when they breach their duty of care in their respective fields of work. The breach of duty of care results in economic harm due to their negligent actions.
• Negligent misrepresentation: This area of tort law deals with legal principles governing cases where false information is provided without due diligence, leading to economic loss for the receiver.
• Negligent performance of services: This area of tort law deals with situations where careless performance of services results in economic harm, establishing standards for liability in such cases.
• Public nuisance: This area of tort law covers legal considerations related to actions and activities that cause harm to the public, addressing liability for economic damages resulting from such nuisances. 
• Breach of fiduciary duty: This area of tort law deals with the breaches of trust and responsibility, describing principles that cause economic harm by the violation of fiduciary duties.
• Unjustifiable litigations: This area of tort law deals with liability when the party files frivolous, baseless, or unwarranted lawsuits for economic harm.
• Civil conspiracy: This area of tort law involves legal principles encompassing collaborative wrongful actions leading to economic harm, and establishing liability for undisclosed activities causing bankruptcy.  

According to the official website of the ALI, this fourth part of the third series of Restatement of Torts is still under development. Upon completion, it will replace the Restatement (Second) of Torts. The development of this part is in the hands of reporter Ward Farnsworth. 

The Reporter states that due to the increase in lawsuits in the U.S. courts for the compensation of economic losses, judges and experts are discussing thoroughly regarding when it should be allowed to get money for these kinds of losses. The Reporter states that by closely observing how different courts are dealing with these particular issues, the new fourth part of this series aims to use the best of the ideas for staying in tune with the current system of laws.

Application of the principle of liability for economic harm 

According to the ALI Advisor, this rule (liability for economic harm) of Restatement (Third) of Tort was used concurrently with Restatement (Second) of Tort in cases such as

Dhital case

In Dhital v. Nissan North America Inc. (2022), which was decided by the Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.

• The Court stated that the rule of economic harm cannot be applicable in cases of fraudulent inducement. This means that this rule is not applicable in cases where consumers were tricked into buying faulty products by the company. 
• In this case, the plaintiff was tricked by the defendant into buying a car that came with a faulty transmission system, and the court denied the applicability of the rule of liability for economic harm. 
• The Court stated that such exceptions exist because the defendant’s behavior broke the duty of honesty during the car purchase process.
• Under the fraudulent inducement rule, such injured parties are allowed to sue the accused for faulty products even when there is a warranty involved. 

United States ex rel. case

In the United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc. (2023), which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

• The case deals with the provisions of 31 USC 3729 – False Claims under the False Claims Act (FCA). This rule allows an individual to sue someone on behalf of the government. They can sue when they believe someone is cheating the government. 
• In this case, the plaintiff sued two pharmaceutical companies. The plaintiff believed that the defendant cheated federal programs that provide medical benefits and Medicare. The main issue was whether these companies knowingly submitted false claims regarding their report on customary drug prices to federal healthcare or not. 
• The Court of Appeal stated that pharmacies cannot be held liable under the Act of False Claims because their actions were consistent with the reasonable interpretation of the law.
• The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the decision of the Court of Appeal and stated that the main question under the False Claims Act is whether the pharmacies knew that they were making false claims or not. If they knew such a fact to be false, then their knowledge regarding such a fact is of importance.
• The Court stated that the companies cannot use reasonable interpretation of the law as an excuse for their actions. 

Conclusion

In legal language, the Restatements of Torts stand as a crucial legal instrument, wielding significant importance in its establishment. The Restatements of Torts, functioning as a comprehensive legal document, explains the complicated rules and principles governing civil wrongs and personal injuries. The compilation of information under the Restatements of Torts serves as an invaluable guidebook, offering directions to courts, judges, and legal practitioners struggling with issues of negligence, liability, and compensation for the harm caused to others. 

Even though the Restatements of Torts do not possess any binding authority in the legal fraternity, these Restatements of Torts still play a significant role in promoting fairness and consistency within the legal system. The Restatement of Torts functions as a compass, aiding lawyers, courts, and judges to make fair and consistent decisions in cases involving complex situations related to injury caused because of wrongful acts of one party involved in the dispute. In essence, the Restatement of Torts contributes to the simplification of laws, offering clarity and comprehensibility that facilitate sound decision-making.

Moreover, the Restatements of Torts serve a dual purpose. The Restatement of Torts, not only makes the laws simpler but also provides legal principles accessible to non-legal professionals, thereby magnifying public understanding of the duties imposed by the law. By sticking to these articulated legal standards, individuals and entities can cautiously reduce the risk of coming across any legal crises. When an individual or entity is careful with their actions and in compliance with the legal rules of law, there is nothing that can stop them from averting any legal crises that are intended to cross paths with their lives or business endeavors.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is a Restatement of Law, and how do Restatements of Law relate to the legal system of the U.S.?

The Restatement of Laws is a series of various publications of laws in a simplified manner. This Restatement acts as a guidebook for the legal fraternity. It aims to provide clarity and guidance on various areas of law. The Restatement does not have a force of law in itself, but it influences the majority of legal decisions.

What is tort law, and what are the categories of tort law?

Tort law deals with civil wrongs. These are wrongs due to which harm is suffered by an individual or to his/her property, giving rise to legal liability. Torts are categorized into various types, such as intentional torts, strict liability, or negligence, among many others. These categories help in defining the basis for legal claims.

What are Restatements of Torts, and how are they important in the legal field?

The Restatements of Torts are the simplified guidebooks for the torts of law. These are available in various forms, each describing the liability for various kinds of wrongful acts.  It is important in the legal field because these restatements offer a comprehensive and organized overview of tort law principles. They are designed and curated to help lawyers, judges, and scholars understand and interpret tort law more effectively and efficiently.

Is the information provided in the Restatements of Torts regularly reformed within the legal field?

The Restatements of Tort are updated in the legal field periodically. These updates that take place are based on and guided by the developments that take place in the case laws, statutory changes, and evolving landscapes of legal principles. These updates reflect changes in the legal doctrines, precedents, or evolving perspectives on tort law.

Are all courts bound to follow the Restatements of Torts?

The courts are not mandatorily required to follow the Restatement of Torts. These are highly persuasive authorities. It means that they are not binding on the courts. The Restatements of Torts are considered to be very influential and are primarily used to support legal arguments.

What is the purpose of black-letter rules in Restatements of Torts?

The black-letter rules under the Restatement of Torts act as a quick reference for lawyers and judges to refer to in a particular case. These rules are clear, concise statements of the fundamental principles of tort law.

Are the Restatements of Torts binding on the state and federal courts?

The Restatements of Torts are neither binding on the state courts nor on the federal courts of the U.S. These are simply guidebooks of principles that can be adopted by the courts or referred to by the courts when deciding the cases of disputes.

How do Restatements of Torts address controversial and evolving legal issues?

The Restatements of Torts, by offering commentary and guidance on evolving and controversial issues, helps the legal field to make more consensus decisions.

Can the Restatement of Tort help non-lawyers understand their legal rights and responsibilities?

Yes, Restatements of Torts are easily accessible by non-lawyers for understanding the complex legal world of rules and principles. To access such information, one can easily refer to publications, online legal databases, law libraries, or the very own American Law Institute official website.

How is a Restatement of Torts different from the case laws in the legal system?

Restatements of Torts laws provide a concise summary of legal principles. These Restatements offer a broader perspective on the area of tort whereas the case laws, on the other hand, are the decisions made by the courts in individual cases. For making these decisions, the court may refer to this Restatement of Torts as a guide.

Can the Restatement of Torts be used to create new laws?

No, the Restatements of Torts do not create any new laws. These Restatements are only aimed at compiling the existing common law principles. It is to guide the courts in making consistent decisions. 

References

• https://www.jstor.org/stable/1171794 
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/27187613 
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/25763477 
• https://dogbitelaw.com/legal-briefs/restatement-of-torts 
• https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/uclalr50&section=35 
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/20745678 
• https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/wmitch37&section=48 
• https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/hoflr26&section=32 
• https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2304&context=jalc 
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/25761581 
• https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/tenn61&section=46 
• https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/hoflr26&section=32 
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/25763264 
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/25763477 
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/25761581 
• https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/sclr49&section=20 
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/797484 
• https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/uclalr50&section=35 
• https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1253&context=facsch 

---

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.