Is Strict Product Liability in Tort Identical to Implied Warranty in Contract in the Context of Personal Injuries
Sean M. Flower
Abstract
Sean M. Flower
Abstract
Product liability has evolved from a combination of contract and tort theories. Under current contract analysis a manufacturer is liable for injuries resulting from a product which is "unmerchantable," while under strict liability in tort a manufacturer is liable for injuries resulting from a product which is "defective.” The majority of legal scholars and jurisdictions have found that in the area of personal injury these two underlying tests are synonymous. This means, in effect, that all products found unmerchantable should also be found defective, and vice versa.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Product liability has evolved from a combination of contract and tort theories. Under current contract analysis a manufacturer is liable for injuries resulting from a product which is "unmerchantable," while under strict liability in tort a manufacturer is liable for injuries resulting from a product which is "defective.” The majority of legal scholars and jurisdictions have found that in the area of personal injury these two underlying tests are synonymous. This means, in effect, that all products found unmerchantable should also be found defective, and vice versa.
Key concepts: Warranty, Tort, Product liability, Personal injury, Context (archaeology), Business, Liability, Product (mathematics)