The Question of the Applicable Law in Cross-Border Claims on Product Liability: Reflections from India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The blurring of international barriers has impacted the nature and complexity of tortious claims and, in particular, those concerning product liability. Products manufactured in one country are often sold or used in another State – and there is often a separation in time and space between the occurrence of the harmful behaviour the resultant injury. For this reason, countries across the globe have increasingly considered it inappropriate to subject such claims to the same mechanism to identify the governing law that applies to other tortious claims of different nature such as negligence, nuisance or defamation. The EU, the UK, Australia, Canada, and India’s BRICS partners – Russia and China – are examples of legal systems that have developed a special conflict of law rules on the applicable law in product liability claims. In contrast, the principles of Indian private international law do not contain any special rule. The applicable law is determined on the basis of a uniform principle that extends to all cross-border disputes on tort. The paper provides a critical evaluation of the mechanism to identify the applicable law in international disputes on product liability. It highlights the predicaments in extending the uniform rule to product liability claims and demonstrates how it debilitates access to justice and is not suitable for disputes that arise from accidents caused by products such as autonomous vehicles, which incorporate new technology. Consequently, the paper suggests workable solutions to develop the Indian conflict-of-law rules on the subject.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".