The Uneasy Case for Product Liability
AbstractIn this Article we compare the benefits of product liability to its costs and conclude that the case for product liability is weak for a wide range of products. One benefit of product liability is that it can induce firms to improve product safety. Even in the absence of product liability, however, firms would often be motivated by market forces to enhance product safety because their sales may fall if their products harm consumers. Moreover, products must frequently conform to safety regulations. Consequently, product liability might not exert a significant additional influence on product safety for many products — and empirical studies of several widely sold products lend support to this hypothesis. A second benefit of product liability is that it can improve consumer purchase decisions by causing product prices to increase to reflect product risks. But because of litigation costs and other factors, product liability may raise prices excessively and undesirably chill purchases. A third benefit of product liability is that it compensates victims of product-related accidents for their losses. Yet this benefit is only partial, for accident victims are frequently compensated by insurers for some or all of their losses. Furthermore, the award of damages for pain and suffering tends to reduce the welfare of individuals because it effectively forces them to purchase insurance for a type of loss for which they ordinarily do not wish to be covered. Opposing the benefits of product liability are its costs, which are great. Notably, the transfer of a dollar to a victim of a product accident through the liability system requires more than a dollar on average in legal expenses. Given the limited nature of the benefits and the high costs of product liability, we come to the judgment that its use is often unwarranted. This is especially likely for products for which market forces and regulation are relatively strong, which includes many widely sold products. Our generally skeptical assessment of product liability for such products is in tension with the broad social endorsement of this form of liability.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Regulation2point0 in its series Working paper with number 575.
Date of creation: Apr 2010
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://regulation2point0.org/
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2010-11-13 (All new papers)
- NEP-MIC-2010-11-13 (Microeconomics)
- NEP-MKT-2010-11-13 (Marketing)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Baumann, Florian & Friehe, Tim, 2012.
"Optimal damages multipliers in oligopolistic markets,"
DICE Discussion Papers
80, Heinrich‐Heine‐Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
- Florian Baumann & Tim Friehe, 2012. "Optimal Damages Multipliers in Oligopolistic Markets," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2012-08, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
- Andrzej Baniak & Peter Grajzl, 2012.
"Equilibrium and Welfare in a Model of Torts with Industry Reputation Effects,"
CEU Working Papers
2012_4, Department of Economics, Central European University, revised 10 Apr 2012.
- Baniak Andrzej & Grajzl Peter, 2013. "Equilibrium and Welfare in a Model of Torts with Industry Reputation Effects," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 265-302, October.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, 2012. "Costly Litigation and Optimal Damages," Discussion Papers 12-005, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
- Baumann, Florian & Friehe, Tim & Grechenig, Kristoffel, 2011. "A note on the optimality of (even more) incomplete strict liability," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 77-82, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Archive Maintainer).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.