Tort Liability

The tort laws have been impeding new biomaterial and medical device developments by the large companies. It is very difficult for them tojustify the financial risk incurred from the relatively low level of their sales. Action is being taken to change the laws. 

---

Prima Facie Case and Affirmative Defenses. The imposition of strict tort liability did not mean that a plaintiff was entided to automatic recovery when iajured by a product. The foUowiag decisions set forth the basic elements that a plaintiff must estabUsh ia order to make out a prima facie case of products HabiUty and the affirmative defenses that either reduce or bar plaintiff s recovery. 

Ausness, R.C., "Will More Aggressive Marketing Practices Lead to Greater Tort Liability for Prescription Drug Manufacturers ," Wake Forest L. Rev., 37, 97-139 (2002). 

Winter (1991) argues that unstable interest rates, unanticipated changes in tort liability rules, asymmetric information, adverse selection, and capital market inefficiencies all caused difficulties for fhe liability insurance market during the 1980s. 

Changes in the interpretation of tort liability by courts have raised the average risk of insuring corporate environmental liability. ... 

This definition does not require that reasonably ascertainable information be readily available it only requires that the information be of a sort that similarly situated people or entities might be expected to have or know. Costs and burdens of finding information, the nature of the PMN substance, anticipated manufacturing quantities, anticipated profits, and the size of the entity submitting the PMN are factors that can be considered in determining whether information is reasonably ascertainable. Because these are all subjective criteria, there is no definition of reasonably ascertainable that is appHcable in all situations. As a practical matter, the potential risks to a submitter are sufficiently high in terms of tort liability, TSCA penalties and adverse pubHcity, that the most dihgent search possible is warranted. 

Third, it strengthens the legal responsibility. Production Safety Law made a more detailed provision in violation of labor safety and sanitation liability. In light of administrative, civil and criminal liability, it has formed a comprehensive accountability system, which is a tort liability system that is more complete. Congress Standing Committee approved No. 155 proposal of Convention on occupational safety and the working environment. in 1981. 

The legal framework also includes common law tort liability, as noted earlier, which threatens companies with compensatory and punitive damages for harms caused by their negligent actions, and in many of the courts where tort claims are brought, evidence that the harm arose from an activity that did not meet an applicable regulation is regarded as conclusive evidence of negligence. 

Another reason is that compliance with prescriptive rules provides a safe harbor from potential liability for the operator. For example, if the operator has fully complied but incurs a harmful incident that leads to tort liability lawsuits which allege operator negligence and seek compensatory and punitive damages, many... 

A word about tort liability and the increased cost of fertile women in the workplace is perhaps necessary. One of the dissenting judges in this case expressed concern about an onployer s tort liability and concluded that liability for a potential injury to a fetus is a social cost that Title VII does not require a company to ignore. 886 F.2d, at 904-905. It is correct to say that Title VII does not prevent... 

Although the issue is not before us. Justice WHITE observes that it is far from clear that compliance with Title VII will pre-empt state tort liability. Post, at 1211. The cases relied upon by him to support his prediction, however, are inapposite. For example, in California Federal Savings and Loan Assn. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. Til, 107 S.Ct. 683, 93 L.Ed.2d 613 (1987), we considered a California statute that expanded upon the requirements of the PDA and concluded that the statute was not pre-empted by Title VII because it was not inconsistent with the purposes of the federal statute and did not require an act that was unlawful under Title 1209 VII. Id., at 291-292, 107 S.Ct, at 694-695. Here, in contrast, the tort liability that Justice WHITE fears will punish employers for complying with Title VIFs clear command. When it is impossible for an employer to comply with both state and federal requirements, this Court has ruled that federal law pre-empts that of the States. See, e.g., Florida Lime Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132,142-143,83 S.Ct. 1210,1217-1218, 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963). 

If state tort law furthers discrimination in the workplace and prevents employers from hiring women who are capable of manufacturing the product as efficiently as men, then it will impede the accomplishment of Congress goals in enacting Title VII. Because Johnson Controls has not argued that it faces any costs from tort liability, not to mention crippling ones, the pre-emption question is not before us. We therefore say no more than that the concurrence s speculation appears unfounded as well as premature. 

On the contrary, a fetal-protection policy would be justified under the terms of the statute if, for example, an employer could show that exclusion of women from certain jobs was reasonably necessary to avoid substantial tort liability. Common sense tells us that it is part of the normal operation of business concerns to avoid causing injury to third parties, as well as to employees, if for no other reason than to avoid 213 tort liability and its substantial costs. This possibility of tort liability is not hypothetical every State currently allows children bom alive to recover in tort for prenatal injuries caused by 1211 third parties, see W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 55, p. 368 (5th ed. 1984), and an increasing number of courts have recognized a right to recover even for prenatal injuries caused by torts committed prior to conception, see 3 F. Harper, F. James, O. Gray, Law of Torts 18.3, pp. 677-678, n. 15 (2d ed. 1986). 

Third, I am willing to assume, as the Court intimates, ante, at 1208-1209, that any action required by Title VII cannot give rise to liability under state tort law. That assumption, however, does not answer the question whether an action is required by Title VII (including the BFOQ provision) even if it is subject to liability under state tort law. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Title VII has accommodated state tort law through the BFOQ exception. However, all that need be said in the present case is that Johnson has not danonstrated a substantial risk of tort liability— which is 224 alone enough to defeat a tort-based assertion of the BFOQ exception. 

In next month s column we will look at how evolving standards of care in the occupational health and safety profession may lead to OSHA General Duty Clause violations, increased tort liability, and challenges to professional ethics. ... 

M. A. Stein (2008) Victorian Tort Liability for Workplace Industry, University of Illinois Law Review, 2008/3 933-984. 

In 1962, the theory of strict liability emerged. It removed the need to show breach of express warranty on the part of a plaintiff. The court mled A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being. In 1965, the American Law Instimte published the Second Restatement of Torts (Section 402A). Most courts accept it as the mles for strict tort liability. 

Tort law is defined at the state level by statutes, court decisions, and constitutional provisions it applies to government entities, individual citizens, and businesses. The law of torts protects individual and business interests from harm and provides a means for those harmed by another to seek compensation for their loss. Tort liability claims also provide a basis for distributing losses to those who are responsible for the harm. Tort law thus provides a systematic means for analyzing and resolving liability claims, while protecting both the interests of the person injured and the governmental jurisdiction. Torts encompass a very broad area of the law, including (Oleck, 1982) ... 

Tort liability includes intentional acts that harm others. Intentional torts include trespass, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and invasion of privacy. 

Is sovereign immunity abolished, retained, or partially waived under state law If sovereign immunity is retained, abolished, or partially waived, state statutes and court decisions will clarify what immunity exists in specific programs or actions. Does the state have a comprehensive tort liability statute or a few provisions of the state code that describe the liability of government units (see Table 11.2 for a list of state tort law references.)... 

Hawaii State Tort Liability Act. Hawaii Rev. Stat Section 662-1 et seq. 

Iowa Tort Liability of Governmental Subdivisions Act. Iowa Code Ann. Section 670.1 to 670.13 (1989). 

Michigan tort liability claims provisions. Mich. Comp. Stat. Section 691.1400 et seq. (1991). 

Montana Montana Governmental Tort Liability Act. Mont. Code Ann. 2-9-101 to 2-9-318 (1991). 

---