The Product Liability Fairness Act: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Third Congress, Second Session, on S. 687 ... March 15, 1994, Volume 4U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995 - 169 pages Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
A.M. Best ability action adverse American Bar American Bar Association approved Assn attorneys believe breast implants cause Chairman civil justice claimant claims Committee common law companies compensation compensatory damages concern Congress consumers costs Dalkon Shield defendant drugs and devices economic loss effects enacted federal courts federal product liability FELDMAN filed harm hazards incentives industry injury issue joint liability judges judgment jurisdiction jury lawyers limited loss damages manufacturers medical devices nonpecuniary loss percent plaintiffs problem product liability law product liability litigation product sellers protective orders punitive damages awards question regulations regulatory responsibility result risk rules safety Senate Bill 687 Senator HEFLIN Senator Thurmond settlement standards statement statute statute of repose strict liability submitted by Senator Supreme Court tion tort law tort liability tort reform tort system trial U.S. Supreme Court uniformity vaccines verdicts women
Popular passages
Page 145 - The very considerations which judges most rarely mention, and always with an apology, are the secret root from which the law draws all the juices of life. I mean of course, considerations of what is expedient for the community concerned. Every important principle which is developed by litigation is in fact and at bottom the result of more or less definitely understood views of public policy...
Page 132 - It is established that a law fails to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause if it is so vague and standardless that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits or leaves judges and jurors free to decide, without any legally fixed standards, what is prohibited and what is not in each particular case.
Page 76 - FDA's Failure in Medical Device Regulation,” Staff Report No. 26-766, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Comm. on Energy and Commerce, US House of Representatives (February 1990).
Page 149 - ... state and federal judicial systems. III. Further resolved, That the American Bar Association supports enactment of federal legislation allocating product liability risks between the federal government and its contractors and providing, in certain instances, indemnity against those risks.
Page 74 - Demystifying Punitive Damages in Product Liability Cases: A Survey of a Quarter Century of Verdicts (Roscoe Pound Foundation, 1991); S. Daniels and J. Martin, Myth and Reality in Punitive Damages, 75 Minn. L. Rev. 1 (1990) (authors are researchers at American Bar Foundation); Peterson, Sharma & Stanley, Punitive Damages: Empirical Findings (Rand Inst. for Civil Justice, Report R-3311-1CJ). aGAO, Product Liability: Verdicts and Case Resolution in Five States (Sept.
Page 132 - We hold that a jury may be permitted to assess punitive damages in an action under § 1983 when the defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.
Page 151 - ... safeguards should be put in force to prevent any defendant from being subjected to punitive damages that are excessive in the aggregate for the same wrongful act. d. Vicarious Liability With respect to vicarious liability for punitive damages, the provisions of Section 909 of the Restatement (Second; of Torts (1979) should apply. Legislatures and courts should be sensitive to adopting appropriate safeguards to protect the master or principal from vicarious liability for the unauthorized acts...
Page 152 - LIABILITY 6. The doctrine of joint — and— several liability should be modified to recognize that defendants whose responsibility is substantially disproportionate to liability for the entire loss suffered by the plaintiff are to be held liable for only their equitable share of the plaintiffs noneconomic loss, while remaining liable for the plaintiffs full economic loss. A defendant's responsibility should be regarded as "substantially disproportionate...
Page 157 - ... cooperate in the construction of advisory rates or the projection of loss experience into the future in such a manner as to Interfere with competitive pricing. (3) Insurers should be authorized to cooperate to develop standardized policy forms in order to simplify consumer understanding, enhance price competition and support data collection efforts, but state regulators should be given authority to guard against the use of standardized forms to unreasonably limit choices available in the market....
Page 142 - The standard of proof should be "clear and convincing" evidence and not a lesser standard such as a "preponderance of the evidence." 2. The ABA is concerned that no defendant should be subjected to punitive damages that are excessive in the aggregate for the same wrongful act. There should therefore be safeguards to prevent the imposition of repeated punitive damages. The purpose of punitive damages is to punish, not to confiscate. The ABA recognizes that the principal responsibility to control excessive...