Legal aspects of managing technology third ed
1 / 19

LEE BURGUNDER - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

LEGAL ASPECTS of MANAGING TECHNOLOGY Third Ed. LEE BURGUNDER. Tort Liability for Physical and Economic Harms. Chapter 13. Negligence. Governed by state law. Negligence defined:

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'LEE BURGUNDER' - xanthus-mullen

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Legal aspects of managing technology third ed


Third Ed.


Tort liability for physical and economic harms

Tort Liability forPhysical and Economic Harms

Chapter 13


  • Governed by state law.

  • Negligence defined:

    • Conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.

Negligence and the restatement of torts
Negligence and the Restatement of Torts

  • For tort liability to arise:

    • The negligent conduct must cause injury.

    • Social policy must make the person responsible for the harm caused by the negligence.

    • There must be no defenses that limit tort liability.

Negligence analysis
Negligence Analysis

  • Duty of Care

    • Reasonable person standard.

    • Community standards.

    • Legal standards.

    • Professional standards.

    • Economic formulations.

      • Prevention costs v. expected losses from injuries.

      • Cheapest cost provider.

Causation analysis
Causation Analysis

  • Direct Causation.

    • But-for analysis.

    • Joint and several liability.

  • Proximate Cause.

    • Liability extends to persons and property to which harm from negligence is reasonably foreseeable.

Defenses to negligence
Defenses to Negligence

  • Assumption of Risk.

  • Comparative fault.

Vuono v new york blood center
Vuono v. New York Blood Center

  • Issue:Did the N.Y. Blood Center fulfill its duty of care with respect to the contaminated vial?

  • Decision: No. It is possible that the N.Y. Blood Center was negligent for using the contaminated vial.

  • Rationale: Standard of care for negligence may exceed industry standards.

Policy reasons for strict products liability
Policy Reasons for Strict Products Liability

  • Negligence may not compensate every consumer.

    • Coca-Cola example.

  • Sense of justice.

  • Economic efficiency.

  • Incentive for continuous improvement.

  • Fundamental Negative.

    • Making someone responsible for a tragedy when they are not blameworthy.

Products liability general principles
Products Liability: General Principles

  • Seller is liable for harm resulting from a product that was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user, regardless of fault.

  • Applies only to sellers who regularly engage in distributing the product.

  • Condition of the product must not be substantially changed by another party before the injuries take place.

  • Injured person may sue any seller within the distribution chain.

Forms of product defects
Forms of Product Defects

  • Manufacturing Defects.

    • The unit causing injury was not manufactured as safely as the manufacturer intended.

  • Design Defects.

    • The unit was manufactured as intended, but it is defective because it should have been designed more safely.

  • Failure to Warn.

    • The unit is manufactured correctly and designed as safely as possible, but it nonetheless is defective because it did not warn users sufficiently about inherent dangers.

Barker v lull engineering
Barker v. Lull Engineering

  • Issue: Was Lull’s High-Lift Loader defectively designed?

  • Decision: Yes. Lull’s design was defective.

  • Rationale: Consumer Expectation Test.

    • The product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect for intended uses and reasonably foreseeable unintended uses.

    • Use of loader by inexperienced worker may be a reasonably foreseeable unintended use.

The new restatement of torts on product liability
The New Restatement of Torts on Product Liability

  • The risk/benefit test is the sole basis of analysis.

  • Consumer expectations are not a separate test, but part of the risk/benefit test.

  • Factors:

    • The magnitude and probability of harm.

    • Instructions and warnings.

    • Consumer expectations

    • The advantages and disadvantages of potential alternatives

The new restatement of torts failure to warn
The New Restatement of Torts:Failure to Warn

  • Foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings.

  • Important factors:

    • Gravity and risks posed by the product.

    • Content and comprehensibility of the warning.

    • Intensity of expression.

    • Characteristics of expected user groups.

Cpsc regulations
CPSC Regulations

  • A firm must notify CPSC when:

    • Information reasonably supports the conclusion that a product fails to comply with CPSC regulations or an industry standard.

    • Product contains a defect that could create a substantial product hazard.

    • Product creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death.

    • Product has been subject to 3 civil suits within 2 calendar years.

Strict product liability and the computer industry
Strict Product Liability and The Computer Industry

  • Expert systems and medical treatment.

  • Year 2000 (Y2K) concerns.

  • Repetitive motion injuries.

  • Tort Litigation.

Intentional torts involving computer systems
Intentional Torts Involving Computer Systems

  • Computer systems are vulnerable to both negligent and intentional injury.

  • Trespass by E-Robots.

    • Ebay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge. Issue: Did BE trespass onto Ebay’s property? Decision: Yes. BE was enjoined from accessing Ebay’s computers.

Intentional torts involving computer systems1
Intentional Torts Involving Computer Systems

  • Spam.

  • Spam and Trespass.

  • Computer Viruses, Trojan Horses and Worms.

  • Electronic Coercion and Self Help.