TortsProf Blog

Editor: Christopher J. Robinette
Widener Commonwealth Law School

Monday, January 16, 2017

CT: Rejection of R(3): Products Liability

In late December, the Connecticut Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to 402(A), but also modified existing doctrine.  Jennifer Brooks Crozier and Adam Masin explain at JD Supra Business Advisor.  The gist:

In arguably the most important Connecticut tort-law decision in decades, the Connecticut Supreme Court in Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc., --- A.3d ---, 2016 WL 7509118 (Conn. Dec. 29, 2016), declined to adopt the approach of the Restatement (Third) to product liability design-defect claims and  “reaffirm[ed] its allegiance” to a “true strict liability” standard under § 402A of the Restatement (Second).  The Court also made a number of “modest refinements” to the Court’s existing interpretation of § 402A.  Most importantly, the Court held that every product liability design-defect claim must allege that the product was “unreasonably dangerous,” but declined to box plaintiffs into one definition of that term for purposes of stating a claim.  The Court also refused to limit punitive damages under the Connecticut Product Liability Act (“CPLA”) to the “litigation expenses less costs” limit under the common-law rule set forth in Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Canaan Oil & Fuel Co., 193 Conn. 208, 477 A.2d 988 (1984).  Given the Court’s cautious approach to remaking the state’s tort law, Bifolck is in practice a reaffirmation of the status quo in Connecticut—at least for now.  The Court did leave open the possibility that it might adopt the Restatement (Third) at some point in the future should its standards under § 402A prove “unworkable.”

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/2017/01/ct-rejection-of-r3-products-liability.html

Current Affairs, Products Liability | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment