TortsProf Blog

Editor: Christopher J. Robinette
Widener Commonwealth Law School

Monday, March 3, 2014

Lens on Post-Sale Duty to Warn

Jill Wieber Lens (Baylor) has posted Warning: A Post-Sale Duty to Warn Targets Small Manufacturers on SSRN.  The abstract provides:

The majority of states now obligate manufacturers to warn about dangers of their products that are discoverable after the sale. Commentators and courts have been hesitant about this obligation because of the potential burden it puts on manufacturers — the costs of identifying users and warning them of the danger. The consensus is that only a factually dependent post-sale duty to warn should exist, obligating manufacturers to warn only if a reasonable manufacturer would do so. A reasonable manufacturer, of course, would warn only if the danger to be warned of justifies the costs of the warning. 

This Article is the first to identify a massive problem with a factually dependent post-sale duty to warn — that it will most likely result in liability for small manufacturers, but not large manufacturers. This is because the costs of issuing the warning for a small manufacturer will always be smaller than for a large manufacturer. This Article is also the first to argue that a factually dependent post-sale duty to warn is thus inconsistent with the underlying purposes of products liability law and general public policy. Although the factually dependent post-sale duty to warn seemed like a perfect solution to the overburdening problem, it should not be adopted.

 

- SBS

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/2014/03/lens-on-post-sale-duty-to-warn.html

Scholarship, TortsProfs | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef01a3fcc8b8a0970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lens on Post-Sale Duty to Warn:

Comments

Post a comment