The Washington Legislature in its 1981 session enacted Senate bill 3158,1 the Tort and Product Liability Reform Act, a comprehensive change in product liability and tort law in the State of Washington. This change, perhaps the most sweeping legislative involvement in Washington tort law in this century, was accomplished after many years of extremely bitter political conflict over product liability and tort reform; Senate bill 3158, however, passed the legislature with little of the acrimony previ- ously associated with the issue. This article explores the involve- ment of the legislature in product liability and tort reform his- torically, reviews the legislative history of Senate bill 3158, and discusses the relationship of the changes contained in the Act to the present law of the State of Washington.
The development of the law of products liability is historically related to industrial growth, business and economic expansion, and the growing demand over the years for consumer protection. As the industrial system has come of age and man has begun to make excursions into outer space, the ancient principle of caveat emptor-"let the buyer beware" has been significantly changed in favor of the consumer. As we emerged from the ancient mercantile society, where the seller and buyer usually met and bargained, to an impersonal market characterized by corporate organization, industrial and technological advancement and complexity, and sophisticated marketing and finance, the law changed in response to the new circumstances. Although the shift from caveat emptor to the promulgation of judicial and legislative rules, safeguards and standards, enlarging the legal rights of the buyer and consumer, came slowly and irregularly in the United States, greater strides have been made in the development of products liability law in the last decade than were made in the entire preceding century. This greater advance can be accounted for by the scientific and economic explosion following World War II and by the greater concern and emphasis being placed on human loss and injury resulting from defective products than on commercial loss suffered by the buyer.
Dr. Wallace Gulia was born in Paola on the 4th of March 1926. In 1945, he took his first degrees from University, the B.Sc; and Ph.C., finishing first in order of merit. In 1947, he obtained, through a correspondence course the Diploma in Public Administration (London). He obtained his B.A. from the Royal University of Malta in 1949, again finishing up first in order of merit. In 1952, he graduated as a lawyer. ; N/A
Circular outlining actions that owners of outdoor recreation enterprises can take to limit liability, and listing New Mexico laws, regulations, licenses, and permits pertaining to outdoor recreation enterprises.
In the evolution of products liability law, therefore,should be the time for doing what usually comes late in the common-law process: to develop a system of fundamental social values and goals to be protected and advanced by the law in this area. Broadly stated, an appropriate balance between individual liberty and social welfare needs to be struck within a fair and workable adjudicatory system. Once a jurisprudential basis of this type has been set, we may then begin to develop a consistent set of principles tailored to this area of the law. It will then be possible to construct one or more "tests" or rules of liability (and defense) which are firmly rooted in the values of society. As a principled system of products liability law thus develops, it would be most surprising if the great bulk of the current doctrinal problems did not drop quickly by the wayside. . Part 2 of this Article will examine several recent attempts to draw upon these accepted policies for assistance in addressing some of the difficult issues of (1) defining "defectiveness," and (2) determining how far the boundaries of strict liability should be extended past sales of new chattels by manufacturers. Part 1 will present a critical reexamination of the existing policies and will demonstrate that much of the current doctrinal confusion springs from the logical inadequacy of the existing policies which itself derives from the lack of a reasoned foundation of political values beneath this area of law. The overall purpose of this Article is to penetrate into the traditional morass of policy arguments in products liability law, to strip away those rationales which cannot withstand the light, and to identify the ways in which the existing policies have intuitively pointed in the right directions.
The legislative and judicial dismantling of sovereign immunity is among the more significant and celebrated reforms of recent American administrative law. In many instances, this development has given those seeking damages for wrongful governmental action their first and only defendant. Even in situations in which litigants already had a cause of action against individual public officials, making the government amenable to suit has enhanced the chances of actual recovery, since officials often lack the means to satisfy judgments rendered against them. The immunity from liability enjoyed by public officials also has undergone a complex series of changes. Though still in flux, this controversial area of the law today finds officials exposed to a considerable risk of personal liability for the wrongs they commit in connection with their performance of duty. Although these developments might have gone even further in lowering the shield of immunity from the government and its officers, they represent a blessing for the victims of official wrongdoing. However, the emerging coexistence of governmental and officer liability has created a new problem of coordination. Without attempting to define the proper scope of liability for harm arising out of governmental activity, this Article explores various aspects of the coordination problem. After briefly sketching recent developments in governmental and officer immunity, and discussing the need for a coherent system of governmental tort law, I shall examine various ways of integrating governmental and officer tort liability so as to accommodate the purposes that the law of governmental torts may appropriately be asked to serve. A brief look will be taken in this connection at the approaches to the problem that have been adopted in French and German law.
The judgement of the Civil Court Ost Hall) in Lowell vs. Caruana, delivered on 14th August, 1972, 3 per the Hon. Mr. Justice Caruana Curran, has cleared the ground for an appreciation of judicial trends in the application, culminating in rejection, of the notion of ius imperii where governmental liability is at issue. The judgement, basing itself upon a logic which repays careful examination for the kind of judicial approach which it articulates, insists that the doctrine of sovereign immunity for the Administration when it acts iure imperii cannot be considered as forming any longer a part of Maltese Law. The doctrine, at least in its more sweeping applications, has been stultifying the better part of governmental liability, namely that of keeping the Administration within the law, wherever and howsoever necessary. Partly as an effect and partly as a cause thereof, judicial control of administrative action in Malta has been inhibited from growing into a body of public law with direct usefulness for the law of governmental liability. It is my intention in the present article to discuss these and other kindred implications as they arise from this judgement. ; peer-reviewed
The legislative history of the maritime limitation of liability statutes, both in the United States and in England, is uncomplicated. The original sources are available, and in several important opinions, the Supreme Court of the United States has set forth the history of the limitation statutes. Limitation of liability to the value of the owner's interest in the vessel and freight is a principle that springs solely from the general maritime law, and was not recognized either at common law or by the civil law. It is difficult, if not impossible, to say when and where the idea of limitation of liability originated. At common law, as administered both in England and America, the personal liability of the owner of a vessel for damages by collision was the same as in other cases of negligence, and was limited only by the amount of the loss and by the owner's ability to respond. The civil law as well made no distinction in favor of ship owners, nor did the ancient laws of the merchant leagues of Oleron or Wisby or the Hanse towns suggest any restriction upon such liability. By the end of the seventeenth century, limitation of liability had become firmly established among the leading maritime nations of Europe. The French Ordinance of 1681 served as a model for most of the modem maritime codes, and declared that the owners of the ship would be answerable for the acts of the master, but they would be discharged therefrom on relinquishing the ship and freight.
There are many important aspects of the Uniform Act that have not been discussed herein including provisions on assumption of risk, punitive damages," and contribution among joint tort feasors. Nevertheless, the examples that have been given show that it is a law that attempts to balance the interests of product users and sellers. It is the Department's hope that state legislatures will give it serious consideration and that it will help bring about uniformity in the key areas of product liability law. As long as courts can retroactively create new and unprecedented product liability law, the specter of future product liability crises will continue. Statutory uniformity in key areas of product liability law can stabilize product liability insurance ratemaking and serve as a bulwark against such crises. In conclusion, it is the Department's view that the Uniform Product Liability Act will help stabilize product liability rates and premiums. The Risk Retention Act will help assure that commercial insurance rates, now and in the future, are set on a truly competitive basis. It is clear that the Uniform Product Liability Act and the Risk Retention Act are synergistic; each will help make the other more effective. The remedies can end the product liability problem for product sellers without compromising consumer rights.
The current interest in statutory reform of product liability law presents a unique opportunity for the Washington Legislature to make some principled decisions in furtherance of the policies behind product liability law. The legislature, in deciding the future direction of product liability law in Washington, must look beyond polarized interests to policy considerations for guidance.
The legislative provisions which make it an offence to procure a miscarriage unlawfully or assist in the unlawful procurement are to be found in sections 58 and 59 or the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In recent years the most common way for an Irish woman to obtain an abortion has been to leave the Republic and obtain such an operation in Britain, where the restrictions imposed on the medical profession with regard to performing operations are far less onerous. How then would the Irish courts view secondary parties to such extra-territorial activities?
The United States Government owns and operates by far the largest fleet in the Americas. It is a fleet which includes not only the high profile carriers, cruisers and destroyers but a miscellany of tugs, barges, tankers, frigates, car floats and lighters. It includes cargo vessels as well as warships. Thus, the potential for the commission of maritime torts is manifest simply from the number and variety of government vessels at sea. Add the myriad responsibilities exercised by Government agencies such as the United States Coast Guard, and the potential for tortious involvement is enormous.
The development of products liability law has followed an arduous course, especially during the past 70 years.' Many serious problems have arisen out of consumer attempts to obtain redress from manufacturers of defective products. Many of these problems have been resolved, but the problem of selecting and applying the appropriate statute of limitations persists, causing confusion among jurists, legislators, and practitioners and yielding inconsistent and inequitable results. A hypothetical will illustrate the problem and provide a factual context within which the problem may be discussed. In 1970, Plaintiff is injured and his home destroyed when a gas water heater explodes. The heater was installed when the house was built in 1966. Plaintiff institutes suit against Defendant, the manufacturer of the heater, in 1971. Plaintiff seeks damages for personal injury and property damage, alleging alternatively these causes of action: negligence; breach of implied warranty; breach of sales warranties provided in the Uniform Commercial Code; and strict liability in tort. The court must decide which statute of limitations--tort, oral contract, or Uniform Commercial Code--should be applied to each cause of action and then select the time at which the statute began to run. These two choices, the appropriate statute and the date on which it begins to run, are the topic of this Note. As situations similar to the hypothetical have confronted the courts with increasing frequency during the past decade, courts and legislatures have taken distinctive approaches and have reached different results in attempting to find solutions to the statute of limitations problems. This Note analyzes in historical perspective the different decisions which have been reached, thus providing a context within which conclusions can be drawn and suggested solutions presented.
This Comment examines and analyzes the two judicially created limitations on governmental tort liability in Washington. It concludes that the discretionary governmental acts immunity is a proper limitation on governmental tort liability, but that the public duty doctrine should be abandoned.
