A Skeptical Attitude About Product Liability is Justified: A Reply to Professors Goldberg and Zipursky

DSpace/Manakin Repository

A Skeptical Attitude About Product Liability is Justified: A Reply to Professors Goldberg and Zipursky

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: A Skeptical Attitude About Product Liability is Justified: A Reply to Professors Goldberg and Zipursky
Author: Shavell, Steven; Polinsky, A. Mitchell

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven M. Shavell, A Skeptical Attitude About Product Liability is Justified: A Reply to Professors Goldberg and Zipursky, 123 Harv. L. Rev. 1949 (2010).
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: In The Uneasy Case for Product Liability, we maintained that the benefits of product liability are likely to be less than its costs for many products, especially widely sold ones. Our article was intended to alter the dominant view held by the judiciary and commentators that product liability has a clear justification on grounds of public policy. We argued instead that a skeptical attitude toward product liability should be adopted.

Professors John Goldberg and Benjamin Zipursky strongly criticize our article in The Easy Case for Products Liability Law: A Response to Professors Polinsky and Shavell. To a significant extent, however, they attack a straw man, for they impute to us a radical thesis – that product liability should be eliminated for all widely sold products – that we manifestly did not advance. In fact, we argued that whether product liability is undesirable depends on the particular product. Goldberg and Zipursky also ascribe to us other opinions that exaggerate what we said in our article – notably, they state that we believe that product liability has no beneficial effect on product safety for widely sold products. It is not surprising, therefore, that they are unable to support these mischaracterizations with citations to statements in our article.

The major claim that Goldberg and Zipursky develop is that our benefit-cost analysis fails to demonstrate that the case for product liability is uneasy. In our view, their critique is deficient on multiple accounts, including that it contains numerous distortions and errors, and hence does not alter our original conclusion.
Published Version: http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/vol123_polinsky_shavell.pdf
Other Sources: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1689272‎
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#OAP
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10900866
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters