|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||
2002 FINAL STATELEGISLATIVE PROGRAM CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE ISSUE: PRODUCT LIABILITY SUMMARY: The expansion of manufacturers' and suppliers' liability for harm caused by unreasonably dangerous products has been one of the most dramatic developments in tort law in recent years. Supporters of legislation to restrict the liability of the makers and sellers of dangerous products have sought to limit the ability of the courts to favor plaintiffs. Among the proposals offered by those who favor restrictions on plaintiffs' rights are 1. Abolishing or severely limiting punitive damages; 2. Adopting a "state of the art defense" which holds that manufacturers are not liable if they could not have known of potential dangers, or if there was not a practical or technically feasible alternative design that would have prevented harm; 3. Requiring victims to discover and prove what was "knowable" and "feasible" about a product's design; 4. Barring recovery to all victims who have been injured by a product over a specific age; 5. Establishing a less stringent standard of negligence; and, 6. Reducing awards by any amount paid by workers' compensation. In 1981 the ABA House of Delegates passed a resolution that opposed a broad federal products liability statute on the grounds that it restricted the rights of U.S. consumers by depriving them of the advice of carefully defined product liability laws in their respective states and would prevent them from improving their laws through state courts and legislatures. Because Maryland products liability law has been established primarily in the courts, supporters of limits have indicated that legislation may be proposed to specify the rights of consumers and manufacturers. Proponents of this approach believe that once legislation has been passed, the number of product liability lawsuits will decrease because both plaintiffs and defendants will have a clear understanding of what to expect from litigation, and that competition and product innovation will be encouraged. Legislation was filed during the 1990 session that proposed extensive changes in Maryland product liability law, but was withdrawn soon after introduction. Since that time no new bills specifically relating to products liability law have been introduced. In 1996, Congress passed significant changes in product liability law that would have had a dramatic effect on the handling of cases in state courts, but the proposal was vetoed by President Clinton. Pressure to enact broad changes in tort law at the federal level persists and may include product liability provisions which may pass Congress and survive Presidential scrutiny. MSBA 2002 POSITION: Oppose legislation that would replace Maryland common law with regard to product liability, recognizing that if change is to be made it should be affected uniformly. SAMPLE LEGISLATION: |
||||||||||
