A Quarter Century After the Products Liability Restatement: Reflections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A quarter century has passed since the adoption by the American Law Institute of the Products Liability Restatement. It is time to reflect on whether it has influenced the courts. At the time of its adoption there was considerable controversy with regard to several sections. Some sections were not controversial. There was little disagreement that a plaintiff may draw a res ipsa like inference of product defect. Nor was there disagreement that if a product was in violation of statute that the product was defective per se. Two sections were highly controversial. The Restatement held that a product could not be held to be defectively designed unless a plaintiff was able to prove that there was a reasonable alternative design available that would have avoided plaintiff's harm. The opponents to this section argued that if a product disappointed consumer expectations it was defective. With regard to drug design the Restatement held that a drug could not be held to be defectively designed if the drug would have been prescribed by a physician to any class of persons. This article demonstrates that the reasonable alternative design standard for most products has been adopted by a majority of jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions that allow recovery based on consumer expectations do so only in a very narrow group of cases. Furthermore, even jurisdictions that purport to adopt the consumer expectations standard plaintiffs invariably prove a reasonable alternative design. As to the defective drug design the case law is mixed but scholars and commentators agree with the Restatement test. The article reviews many sections of the Restatement and finds overwhelming approval of the project.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.043 | 0.067 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".