The Unappreciated Congruity of the Second and Third Restatements on Design Defects
31 Pages Posted: 15 Jul 2011
Date Written: 2009
There was much criticism of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability for its backtracking after decades of strict products liability, spurred by § 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts. This article delves into what the founders - Prosser, Keeton, Traynor, Wade, and others - intended in adopting liability without fault when a product was defective. It concludes that the combination of negligence and § 402A are equivalent to the Third Restatement, especially when one recognizes that § 3 of the Third Restatement captures what the founders intended with their defectiveness standard. In the course of this inquiry, the article takes strong issue with George Priest's claim that § 402A was only meant to address manufacturing defects.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation