Strict liability for hazardous enterprise
Article Abstract:
The scope of strict liability should be expanded by abandoning the distinction between 'abnormally dangerous' and less hazardous activities used in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Strict liability is a better approach than negligence whenever the victim is essentially passive and unable to take precautions to avoid the harm. In cases involving use of property, strict liability should generally apply whenever mischief is allowed to cross the property's boundaries. However, an exception should be made to avoid excessive transaction costs of litigation, as with cases involving escape of water.
Publication Name: Columbia Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0010-1958
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Trademarks and gray market goods: why U.S. trademark holders should be held strictly liable for defective gray market imports
Article Abstract:
It is accepted that trademark holders can be held strictly liable for defective products when they allow foreign manufacturers to produce goods under their trademark and export them to American markets, but whether holders are liable in cases where trademarked products are exported without the holder's consent is under debate. While allowing injured consumers to recover against trademark holders in such cases would place an onerous duty on holders to monitor goods made and imported under their trademarks but without their consent, it is a desirable way to ensure product safety and quality.
Publication Name: George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0748-4305
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
The role of corporate compliance programs in determining corporate criminal liability: a suggested approach
Article Abstract:
Corporate criminal liability law should be modified to allow corporate defendants to admit evidence showing that compliance programs were in place, and juries should be allowed to weigh such evidence against evidence supporting criminal liability. The approach that excludes such evidence as irrelevant to vicarious liability fails to consider the sound policy of encouraging corporations to institute compliance programs. The alternative approach that accepts existence of compliance programs as an affirmative defense undermines corporate incentives to actually investigate misconduct.
Publication Name: Columbia Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0010-1958
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Y2K liability looms for failures of third parties; companies must obtain written certification that suppliers and vendors are millennium-ready
- Abstracts: When imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: private label products and the role of intention in determining trade dress infringement
- Abstracts: Public pension fund activism in corporate governance reconsidered
- Abstracts: Commercial power and competitor litigation. Choice of law in tort in domestic and international litigation. The court-room economist in Australian antitrust litigation: an underutilised resource?
- Abstracts: Are you a designer, manufacturer, supplier or importer of workplace plant and equipment? If your answer is no - read on! Deeming provisions and extended duties under occupational health and safety legislation