News Center

Elsewhere Online twitter Facebook SLS Blogs YouTube SLS Channel Linked In SLSNavigator SLS on Flickr

Research from A.M. Polinsky and colleagues has provided new data on law reviews

Publication Date: 
May 13, 2010
Politics & Government Week

Professor A. Mitchell Polinsky's research is excerpted from a study published in the Harvard Law Review titled, "The Uneasy Case for Product Liability":

According to recent research published in the journal Harvard Law Review, "In this Article we compare the benefits of product liability to its costs and conclude that the case for product liability is weak for a wide range of products. One benefit of product liability is that it can induce firms to improve product safety."

"Even in the absence of product liability, however, firms would often be motivated by market forces to enhance product safety because their sales may fall if their products harm consumers. Moreover, products must frequently conform to safety regulations. Consequently, product liability might not exert a significant additional influence on product safety for many products and empirical studies of several widely sold products lend support to this hypothesis. A second benefit of product liability is that it can improve consumer purchase decisions by causing product prices to increase to reflect product risks. But because of litigation costs and other factors, product liability may raise prices excessively and undesirably chill purchases. A third benefit of product liability is that it compensates victims of product-related accidents for their losses. Yet this benefit is only partial, for accident victims are frequently compensated by insurers for some or all of their losses. Furthermore, the award of damages for pain and suffering tends to reduce the welfare of individuals because it effectively forces them to purchase insurance for a type of loss for which they ordinarily do not wish to be covered. Opposing the benefits of product liability are its costs, which are great. Notably, the transfer of a dollar to a victim of a product accident through the liability system requires more than a dollar on average in legal expenses. Given the limited nature of the benefits and the high costs of product liability, we come to the judgment that its use is often unwarranted. This is especially likely for products for which market forces and regulation are relatively strong, which includes many widely sold products," wrote A.M. Polinsky and colleagues.

The researchers concluded: "Our generally skeptical assessment of product liability for such products is in tension with the broad social endorsement of this form of liability."

Polinsky and colleagues published their study in Harvard Law Review (The Uneasy Case For Product Liability. Harvard Law Review, 2010;123(6):1437-1492).

For additional information, contact A.M. Polinsky, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA, USA.