Search results
1 – 10 of 218Bob Gates, Colin Griffiths, Paul Keenan, Sandra Fleming, Carmel Doyle, Helen L. Atherton, Su McAnelly, Michelle Cleary and Paul Sutton
Bob Gates, Colin Griffiths, Paul Keenan, Sandra Fleming, Carmel Doyle, Helen L. Atherton, Su McAnelly, Michelle Cleary and Paul Sutton
Bob Gates, Colin Griffiths, Paul Keenan, Sandra Fleming, Carmel Doyle, Helen L. Atherton, Su McAnelly, Michelle Cleary and Paul Sutton
Bob Gates, Colin Griffiths, Paul Keenan, Sandra Fleming, Carmel Doyle, Helen L. Atherton, Su McAnelly, Michelle Cleary and Paul Sutton
Bob Gates, Colin Griffiths, Paul Keenan, Sandra Fleming, Carmel Doyle, Helen L. Atherton, Su McAnelly, Michelle Cleary and Paul Sutton
Bob Gates, Colin Griffiths, Paul Keenan, Sandra Fleming, Carmel Doyle, Helen L. Atherton, Su McAnelly, Michelle Cleary and Paul Sutton
Bob Gates, Colin Griffiths, Paul Keenan, Sandra Fleming, Carmel Doyle, Helen L. Atherton, Su McAnelly, Michelle Cleary and Paul Sutton
Bob Gates, Colin Griffiths, Paul Keenan, Sandra Fleming, Carmel Doyle, Helen L. Atherton, Su McAnelly, Michelle Cleary and Paul Sutton
David S. Gedde and Tantatape Brahmasrene
Describes the impact of recent changes in US tort law and identifies four interest groups concerned: manufacturers, insurance companies, consumers and lawyers. Discusses their…
Abstract
Describes the impact of recent changes in US tort law and identifies four interest groups concerned: manufacturers, insurance companies, consumers and lawyers. Discusses their relative strengths, motivations and influence on judicial decisions, citing relevant liability cases for product‐related injuries due to manufacturing defects, design defects and inadequate warnings. Develops a logistic regression model to relate state adoption of strict liability standards to the relative strength of interest groups and applies it to US data. Suggests that the strength of manufacturers and, more particularly, lawyers is significant; and that liberal states are more likely to adopt strict liability for design defects. Calls for further research on the role of the legal profession in legal change.
Details