Provide arguments for and against allowing the state-of-the-art defense in strict product liability actions
What will be an ideal response?
In most strict liability cases, courts have rejected the use of the state-of-the-art defense, stating that the issue is not what the producers knew at the time the product was produced, but whether the product was defectively dangerous. The refusal of most courts to allow the state-of-the-art defense in strict liability cases makes sense if we consider the social policy reasons for imposing strict liability. One of the reasons for imposing strict liability is that the manufacturers or producers are best able to spread the cost of the risk; this risk-spreading function does not change with the availability of scientific knowledge.
The argument against this position, however, is equally compelling to some. If the manufacturer has indeed done everything as safely and carefully as available technology allows, it seems unfair to impose liability on the defendant. It could not have manufactured the product in a safer way.
You might also like to view...
When prices are rising, net income calculated by using the last-in, first-out method is smaller than the amount determined from using either the first-in, first-out or the weighted-average method
a. True b. False Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Consider the real estate industry. The ________ for this industry includes construction companies, financing institutions, paint manufacturers, interior decorators, furniture manufacturers, and plumbing industries
A) marketspace B) latent market C) need market D) metamarket E) geographic market
According to research studies, the closest relationships between customers and suppliers arise when ________
A) supply is important to the customer and there were procurement obstacles B) procurement is simple C) there are many undifferentiated vendors in the marketplace D) the customer is highly price sensitive E) the suppliers charge a premium for their products
What was the operating income (loss) for the year?
Hendrix & Franks Co. had the following beginning and ending inventory balances for the current year ended December 31: January 1 December 31 Materials $11,000 $ 8,800 Work in Process 19,800 18,700 Finished Goods 23,100 18,150 In addition, direct labor costs of $33,000 were incurred, manufacturing overhead equaled $46,200, materials purchased were $29,700, and selling and administrative costs were $24,200. Hendrix & Franks Co. sold 27,500 units of product during the year at a sales price of $5.25 per unit. A. $18,500 B. $125,000 C. $3,025 D. $2,000