Worker’s Compensation: no workers gave up right to sue employers and fellow employees (except for egregious torts); got around Holy Trinity of Defense (Fellow Servant Rule, Contributory Negligence, Assumption of Risk) Still have to prove illness or injury arose through work (occupational diseases problem) Risk-adjusted premiums for insurance that employers have to buy (reflects deterrence; make workplace safer = cheaper premiums) Benefits cover: med care, loss in income, vocational rehabilitation, benefits for survivors, funerals… (NOT pain and suffering) Established though legislation (not individualized like Torts) Categories of workers (which is better: torts or worker’s comp?) At fault: better in worker’s comp Mildly injured: the same Severely injured: MUCH better in Tort Law, BUT only if company had assets/insurance to pay no fault regime to other areas? (Med Mal, Accidents/Illnesses) Rationale: why do some get compensated and not others? (like lottery) AND inefficient (lots of transaction costs to get compensation) create one big fund for each type: doctors pay into one, drivers pay into another, etc. Products Liability FACIE CASE: 1) P suffered a legally cognizable injury 2) A a product sold NOT a gift or a service (and no body parts, intangibles, animals, and texts (except maps)) 3) A is a of such products commercial seller Manufacturers, distributors, retailers 4) At the by A, the product was in a condition time it was sold defective (Here, you break off into the three branches BELOW) 5) The defect functioned as an of P’s injuries actual and proximate cause THREE BRANCHES of Products Liability 1. Manufacturing defect - STRICTLY LIABLE When product diverges from for manufacturer’s own internal guidelines product (INTERNAL STANDARD) 2. Design defect (2 tests) - when there is a flaw in the for plans or specifications an (EXTERNAL STANDARD; like negligence) entire line of products A. Consumer Expectations Test: product more dangerous than ordinary consumer would expect (eg. Wisconsin, Connecticut) Criticisms: if consumer expectation is that product is unsafe, manufacturer will not be held liable for unsafe products (low
Worker’s Compensation: no workers gave up right to sue employers and fellow employees (except for egregious torts); got around Holy Trinity of Defense (Fellow Servant Rule, Contributory Negligence, Assumption of Risk) Still have to prove illness or injury arose through work (occupational diseases problem) Risk-adjusted premiums for insurance that employers have to buy (reflects deterrence; make workplace safer = cheaper premiums) Benefits cover: med care, loss in income, vocational rehabilitation, benefits for survivors, funerals… (NOT pain and suffering) Established though legislation (not individualized like Torts) Categories of workers (which is better: torts or worker’s comp?) At fault: better in worker’s comp Mildly injured: the same Severely injured: MUCH better in Tort Law, BUT only if company had assets/insurance to pay no fault regime to other areas? (Med Mal, Accidents/Illnesses) Rationale: why do some get compensated and not others? (like lottery) AND inefficient (lots of transaction costs to get compensation) create one big fund for each type: doctors pay into one, drivers pay into another, etc. Products Liability FACIE CASE: 1) P suffered a legally cognizable injury 2) A sold a product NOT a gift or a service (and no body parts, intangibles, animals, and texts (except maps)) 3) A is a commercial seller of such products Manufacturers, distributors, retailers 4) At the time it was sold by A, the product was in a defective condition (Here, you break off into the three branches BELOW) 5) The defect functioned as an actual and proximate cause of P’s injuries THREE BRANCHES of Products Liability 1. Manufacturing defect - STRICTLY LIABLE When product diverges from manufacturer’s own internal guidelines for product (INTERNAL STANDARD) 2. Design defect (2 tests) - when there is a flaw in the plans or specifications for an entire line of products (EXTERNAL STANDARD; like negligence) A. Consumer Expectations Test: product more dangerous than ordinary consumer would expect (eg. Wisconsin, Connecticut) Criticisms: if consumer expectation is that product is unsafe, manufacturer will not be held liable for unsafe products (low
Torts_-_Wyman_Fall_2010_Outline.docx