•  
  •  
 
Vanderbilt Law Review

Authors

Page Keeton

First Page

131

Abstract

Much has been written by judges and scholars about abrogation of both the requirement of privity for recovery on warranty theories and the prerequisite of a finding of negligence for recovery on a tort theory against manufacturers and other sellers of all kinds of products.' As a consequence of this abrogation, the courts in some states have completed the change-over from a fault to a strict liability theory of recovery for harm resulting from unintended and latent dangerous conditions of products. Moreover, removal of initial restrictions limiting strict liability to users and consumers is proceeding apace, and the logical extension of strict liability to bystanders has already been accomplished in several jurisdictions. Confusion and uncertainty remain, however, as to what actual impact these assaults on fault have had with reference to the legal remedies for physical harm caused by inherent risks attendant upon the use of products, such as drugs and cosmetics, that are constructed as they were intended to be.

Included in

Torts Commons

COinS