Within the past few years, courts have put nearly the whole field of products liability on a strict liability basis, free from the restrictions of privity; they have reversed the rule of non-liability for pre-natal injuries; they have virtually destroyed charitable immunity, while making serious inroads on governmental immunity. Some, of course, have deplored the role of courts in making these changes, and they will probably applaud the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in the Maki case. But for those of us who accept or welcome the present regeneration of judicial law making in the field of torts, further questions are presented: What are the proper limits to the judicial function in this situation? What considerations should guide its exercise? Finally, does the judicial function properly include the kind of change sought in the present case?" It is my conclusion that the appellate court's decision does not transgress the proper limits of the judicial function, and that its subject is a peculiarly appropriate one for judicial decision.
James Fleming Jr.,
21 Vanderbilt Law Review
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol21/iss6/3