Case and statutory law often condition liability on the safety of the defendant's product relative to competing products. This article explores the safety and welfare implications of commonly observed "technological advancement: and "customary practice" tests of productive liability. We find that, in general, the technological advancement test yields excessive safety expenditures, while the customary practice test leads to inadequate safety. In addition, we show that characteristics of the law vary across jurisdictions and in ways that can significantly affect the tests' desirability. Two particularly important characteristics are the degree to which the tests are conclusive and whether or not compliance with government standards is used as an external complement to relative safety evidence. Jurisdictions can mitigate the worst tendencies of relative safety tests by not allowing them to be conclusive and by allowing for reference to government or other external standards. Copyright 1997 by the University of Chicago.
Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
Volume (Year): 26 (1997) Issue (Month): 2 (June) Pages: 433-73 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML,
plain text,
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote),
ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:26:y:1997:i:2:p:433-73
Contact details of provider: Postal: The University of Chicago Press, Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005 Chicago, IL 60637 Fax: (773) 753-0811 Email: Web page: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/