No fault liability

The queshon to be asked in respect of no fault liability, where individual employers contribute to a national scheme according to their performance, is whether the remoteness of the penalty (premium payment) from the events (the accidents and compensation pa5unents) demotivates employers from taking actions necessary to remove the cause of the accident. This is a complex area since it inevitably involves humanitarian attitudes as well as the purely economic. 

---

The following distinction is made in some discussions of product liability. Strict liability compensation is provided by the pnxlucer/manufactuier. No-fault liability or scheme compensation is provided by a central fund. 

Civil actions for damages in cases of injury negligence assessment of damages defences. No fault liability systems advantages and disadvantages. 

C. The Necessity of Discretionary Liability Limitation in the Case of Strict Liability. Strict or direct liability is a no-fault liability. However, it is much more than a mere contingent liability which would solely require a causative connection between the operation of a technical product and the occurrence of the damage in order to be able to establish liability. Strict or direct liability which is all-encompassing is restricted by assessing points of view which, besides the already-mentioned upper limit, include, in general ... 

Critics have long complained about the ineffectiveness of medical liability law both as a means of reducing the risks of injuries and as a system of compensation for injuries. So far, none of these critiques has led policy makers to jettison our fault-based medical liability system and to replace it with some type of no-fault system as proposed by some scholars. Thus some form of medical liability is going to be a feature of the social and regulatory... 

Vaccine liability issues were also covered in Section 304 of the Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002as amended in April 2003, in which Congress enacted liability protection for manufacturers of smallpox vaccines. Vaccine liability can be handled in four different ways the government can substitute itself as the defendant, it can decide nobody need be liable and provide no-fault compensation, it can indemnify manufacturers after they have been sued and lost, or it can alter the normal rules of litigation. In the HSA, the government substitutes itself as the defendant if the HHS Secretary declares an actual or potential bioterrorist incident or other actual or potential public health emergency makes advisable the administration of a covered countermeasure," such as a vaccine. Secretary Tommy Thompson issued the first such declaration on January 24, 2003. 

The third policy, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund, introduced a government-run, no-fault product liability system that reduced the mean and variance of product liability costs associated with four childhood vaccines polio, diphtheria-tetanus, measles-mumps-rubella, and pertussis. 

The developers acknowledged moral (though not legal) liability for the harm done and paid compensation to affected patients. They were not negligent because current science did not provide a possibility of predicting the effect, i.e. state of the art defence applied. The law did not provide for strict liability or no-fault compensation (see p. 10). 

Although Section 304 satisfied some of the liability concerns, it failed to address health care worker worries about compensation for lost wages due to side effects of the vaccine (27). In addition. Section 304 did not address hospital and health care worker concerns about whether compensation would be adequate for victims of vaccine complications, including victims, such as household contacts, who were not vaccine recipients. Consequently, on April 30, 2003, the President signed a law to compensate health care workers or first responders injured by the preevent smallpox vaccination program. The law established a no-fault fund that had the following provisions (35) ... 

The National Child Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was passed by the U.S. Congress in response to reports of vaccine side effects and liability concerns of vaccine manufacturers and health care providers. With vaccine safety being questioned and manufacturers ceasing the development and marketing of vaccines, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was instituted to offer a no-fault alternative... 

There are also efforts underway that are focused on reducing the total liability to software developers by avoiding excessive awards and introducing a no-fault claims system which may be of future benefit.(45)... 

Although the Federal Government has not adopted product liability reforms for therapeutic pharmaceuticals, several States have, and the Federal Government has adopted no-fault compensation schemes for swine flu and childhood vaccines that could offer potential models for Federal underwriting of other product liability risks. The U S. Congress has also considered several proposals to adopt a Federal product liability law that would supersede current State law. 

Although claimants may still choose to pursue compensation, this statute essentially constitutes Federal tort reform for eligible childhood vaccine-related injuries. By establishing a no-fault compensation scheme as the first form of redress for injuries and limiting liability for manufacturers who have met FDA requirements, Congress has, in essence, nullified case law that had previously allowed liability findings based on theories of... 

These measures were passed as amendments to the Price-Anderson act in August 1957. The primary purpose of this act was to establish liability limits and no-fault provisions for insurance on nuclear reactor accidents. Such indemnity legislation was deemed essential by AEC, the emerging nuclear industry, and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy who recognized that the probability of a severe reactor accident could not be reduced to zero. The original act, which has periodically ammended, had the government underwrite... 

For all of the benefits that it confers, there are some disadvantages of liability. The first are the costs of litigation. In an earlier chapter it was shown that the adversarial FELA method of compensating injured employees has far high transaction costs that the no-fault workers compensation applicable to other... 

Among other things, this Limited Warranty applies to your ability to install an electronic file or software or such an installation s effects on your computer or other electronic devices. Plunkett Research, Ltd. assumes no liability and does not guarantee that this Data will install or function correctly on your computer or other electronic devices and further does not guarantee or accept any liability for the results of your attempt to install this Data, including any fault or dysfunction (including, but not limited to computer viruses and/or alterations to computer files, registries or setups) to your computer or electronic devices that may be caused by installation or use. 

---