PRODUCTS LIABILITY

Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (Cal. 1978)—A Product Is Defective in Design if (1) It Has Failed to Perform as Safely as an Ordinary Consumer Would Expect When It Is Used in an Intended or Reasonably Foreseeable Manner, or (2) the Injury Was Proximately Caused by the Defective Design and the Benefits of the Challenged Design Do Not Outweigh Its Risks…..28:493

A Critique of the Uniform Product Liability Law—A Rush to Judgment…..28:221

Cronin v. I.B.F. Olson Corp. (Cal. 1972)—Under Greenman Formulation, the Plaintiff Need Not Prove that the Defective Product Was Unreasonably Dangerous…..23:197

Design Defect Litigation in Iowa: The Myths of Strict Liability…..40:465

Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 577 A.2d 1239 (N.J. 1990)—Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act Does Not Preempt State Tort Claims Against Cigarette Manufacturers for Failure to Warn, Design Defects, or Fraud and Misrepresentation in Advertising…..41:201

The Duty Concept in Farm Accidents in Iowa: When Does a Wiggle Become a Wobble?…..18:155

Federal Pre-emption of State Products Liability Laws and Limitations of the Strict Liability of Manufacturers…..32:961

Hillrichs v. Avco Corp., 478 N.W.2d 70 (Iowa 1991)–A Manufacturer of Farm Machinery May Be Liable in Iowa for Enhanced Injuries, But How Is Any Comparative Fault of the Plaintiff to Be Attributed to the Enhanced Injuries?…..42:699

The Inconsistencies and Confusion of Successor Corporation Liability in Product Liability Claims: Should Iowa Adopt a New Approach?…..34:161

Insurance Solution or Tort Reform?—Iowa Joins in the Nationwide Examination of Proposed Product Liability Legislation…..29:113

Iowa Rule of Evidence 407: A Proposal for Application in Duty to Warn Cases…..36:797

Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)—The Doctrine of Strict Liability in Tort Can Be Applied to Home Builders…..19:240

Limiting Manufacturers’ Liability for Aging Products…..39:713

Manufacturer’s Liability for Negligent Design…..14:117

Market Share Liability, Industry-wide Liability, Alternative Liability and Concert of Action: Modern Legal Concepts Preserving Liability for Defective but Unidentifiable Products…..31:61

McClaflin v. Bayshore Equipment Rental Co., (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)—A Commercial Bailor Is Liable Under the Doctrine of Strict Liability in Tort for Injuries Sustained by the Bailee from a Defect in the Bailed Article…..19:235

A Model Mass Tort: The PPA Experience…..54:621

Mulcahy v. Eli Lilly & Company, 386 N.W.2d 67 (Iowa 1986)—Plaintiffs in a Products Liability Action Must Prove that the Injury-Causing Product Was Manufactured or Supplied by the Party to Be Held Responsible Under Traditional Causation Principles…..36:821

Myth Surrenders to Reality: Design Defect Litigation in Iowa…..51:549

The Pharmacist’s Duty to Warn: Toward a Knowledge-Based Model of Professional Responsibility…..40:1

Piercefield v. Remington Arms Co., 375 Mich. 85, 133 N.W.2d 129 (1965)—Can an Innocent Bystander, Injured by a Defective Product, Maintain an Action Against the Manufacturer for Breach of an Implied Warranty of Fitness…..15:137

Plaintiff Misconduct as a Defense in Products Liability…..25:189

Post Sale Warnings: A Review and Analysis Seeking Fair Compensation Under Uniform Law…..33:817

Products Reliability—A Reasonable Expectation—The Ultimate Goal…..25:828

The Role of the Federal Court in the Expansion of the Ambit of Liability of Manufacturers: Conceptual Approaches and a Suggested Solution…..28:389

Schiavone Construction Co. v. Elgood Mayo Corp. (N.Y. Div. 1981)—Manufacturer Is Liable to Remote Purchaser Under Strict Liability for Economic Losses Incurred Due to Failure of Custom-Built Equipment to Accomplish Purpose for Which It Was Built…..31:927

Strict Liability in Tort—An Explosion in Products Liability…..20:528

A Synopsis of the Developing Law of Products Liability…..28:317

Use of Standards in Products Liability Litigation…..30:283

With A Poster Case Like the Trial Bar’s, Who Needs Enemies?: A Product Liability Claimant’s Odyssey…..56:83