Order Code IB97056
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Products Liability:
A Legal Overview
Updated October 4, 2002
Henry Cohen
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Glossary
Federal Statutes Enacted, 97th-106th Congresses
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Reports

---

IB97056
10-04-02
Products Liability: A Legal Overview
SUMMARY
Products liability refers to the liability of
plaintiffs view strong products liability law as
a manufacturer or seller for injury caused by
necessary to ensure adequate compensation
his product to the person or property of a
for injured workers and consumers and to
buyer or third party. Legal developments
furnish an incentive for the manufacture of
starting in the 1960s, particularly the adoption
safe products. Manufacturers and their insur-
of strict tort liability, have made it substan-
ers, by contrast, contend that many products
tially easier for persons injured by defective
liability judgments are unwarranted or exces-
products to recover damages. Starting in the
sive and that national uniformity in products
1980s, however, many states enacted tort
liability law is needed. Therefore, they favor
reform legislation that limited the rights of
replacing the 50 state products liability laws
injured parties. Advocates for consumers and
with one federal law.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB97056
10-04-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On March 14, 2001, the House passed, by voice vote, H.R. 860, 107th Congress, the
Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiform Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2001. Section 2 of H.R. 860
would authorize multidistrict litigation panels that adjudicate pretrial matters in
consolidated lawsuits (typically mass torts) to retain jurisdiction for trial instead of
remanding the suits back to the districts where they were originally filed. Section 3 of H.R.
860 would give federal district courts, in three circumstances, “jurisdiction of any civil
action involving minimal diversity between adverse parties that arise from a single accident,
where at least 25 natural persons have either died or incurred injury . . . and, in the case of
injury, the injury has resulted in damages that exceed $150,000 per person. “Minimal
diversity” means that a least one plaintiff and one defendant are from different states;
current law requires “complete diversity,” which precludes federal court jurisdiction if any
plaintiff and any defendant are from the same state.
On April 18, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce held hearings on H.R. 2037, 107th Congress, the
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. On May 9, 2002, the subcommittee adopted
a Manager’s Amendment by voice vote, approving it for full committee consideration. The
full committee approved it, without further amendment, on September 25, 2002. H.R. 2037,
as approved by the committee, would provide that licensed manufacturers and licensed
sellers of a “firearm or ammunition product,” or a trade association representing them,
would not be liable under state law for “harm caused by the criminal, suicidal, negligent,
or other unlawful misuse of such firearm or ammunition product by any other person.”
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Products liability, which is primarily a matter of state law, is generally based on strict
tort liability rather than on negligence. This means that a plaintiff need prove only that the
defendant sold a defective product and that the defect was the proximate cause of the
plaintiff’s injuries. Due care on the part of the defendant is ordinarily immaterial. The
purpose of strict tort liability is “to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective
products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by
the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves” (Greenman v. Yuba Power
Products, Inc., 377 P.2d 897 (1963)).
The Federal Interagency Task Force on Product Liability, under the direction of the
Department of Commerce, in its Final Report issued November 1, 1977, found that the cost
of product liability insurance had risen dramatically, making it more difficult for some small
firms to obtain adequate insurance coverage. The major causes of the dramatic rise in rates,
the Task Force found, were irrational premium setting procedures by insurance companies,
the manufacture of products that are not as safe as current technologies would allow, and
uncertainties as to how personal injury litigation is conducted.
On April 6, 1978, the Department of Commerce released an Options Paper on Product
Liability and Accident Compensation Issues, 43 Federal Register 14612. It included a model
bill entitled, “Product Liability Self-Insurance Act of 1978.” On September 11, 1978, the
CRS-1

---

IB97056
10-04-02
Department published a summary of over 300 comments submitted to it on its Options Paper
(43 Federal Register 40438).
On July 20, 1978, the Carter Administration unveiled its program to deal with product
liability problems. The proposals generally followed those suggested by the Department of
Commerce in its Options Paper. The Administration also directed that a model uniform
product liability law be prepared to add stability to products liability law, which varies from
state to state.
The Department of Commerce subsequently published a Model Uniform Product
Liability Act. See 44 Federal Register 2996 (January 12, 1979) for the draft version and 44
Federal Register 62714 (October 31, 1979) for the final version. Although intended for
enactment by the states, the draft version was introduced in the 96th Congress as H.R. 1676,
and the final version was introduced as H.R. 5976 (both by Representative LaFalce).
Hearings on the two versions were held, but neither was enacted.
In October 1985, Attorney General Meese established the Tort Policy Working Group,
which consisted of representatives of ten Federal agencies and the White House. In
February, 1986, the group issued its report: “Report of the Tort Policy Working Group on
the Causes, Extent and Policy Implications of the Current Crisis of Insurance Availability
and Affordability.” The report made eight recommendations, including the elimination of
joint and several liability and of the collateral source rule, a $100,000 cap on non-economic
damages, and a 25% cap on the first $100,000 in lawyer’s contingent fees. In March 1987,
the Tort Policy Working Group issued another report, “An Update on the Liability Crisis.”
During the 1980s, in response to the liability insurance “crisis,” many states enacted tort
reforms intended to limit the rights of injured parties. Some states limited the right of
plaintiff to sue product sellers other than the manufacturer; some states permitted awards of
punitive damages only upon proof by “clear and convincing” evidence, or required that a
portion of punitive damages be paid to a state fund; some states enacted caps on punitive
damages or on non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering; some states limited or
eliminated joint and several liability or the collateral source rule; and some enacted a statute
of repose. (See “Glossary” for an explanation of these terms.) State reforms continued to
be enacted into the 1990s.
Consumer representatives and plaintiffs’ attorneys generally oppose limiting injured
parties’ rights in products liability suits; they consider the present system necessary to
provide incentives for the manufacture of safe products and to ensure adequate compensation
for injured workers and consumers. Insurance companies and product manufacturers, by
contrast, hoping to reduce the amount currently paid as the result of products liability suits,
and seeking national uniformity in products liability law, have supported federal products
liability reform.
A federal products liability statute could bring about national uniformity with respect
to some issues; some proposed legislation, for example, has included a national statute of
limitations and statute of repose for products liability suits. However, some legislative
provisions, such as one that establishes a standard of conduct for the award of punitive
damages, are necessarily subject to varying interpretations by every Federal and state court,
unless the Supreme Court establishes a national interpretation of it. Even if the Supreme
CRS-2

---

IB97056
10-04-02
Court does so, such a provision’s application to the facts of particular cases may vary among
juries. Therefore, the possibility of uniformity should not be overestimated.
Glossary
The extent to which each of the following concepts is applicable in particular products
liability lawsuits depends upon the relevant state law.
Alteration of product. A possible contributing cause to an injury that may be
performed by a plaintiff or a third party, such as a plaintiff’s employer; it may reduce or
eliminate a defendant’s liability.
Assumption of risk. A form of contributory fault by a plaintiff; it may reduce or
eliminate a defendant’s liability.
Breach of warranty. A basis for liability that does not require the plaintiff to prove
that the defendant was negligent, but does permit the defendant to raise certain contract law
defenses to avoid liability.
Collateral source rule. The rule that a plaintiff’s damages will not be reduced by
amounts he recovered from sources other than the defendant, such as health insurance
benefits.
Comparative negligence. The rule that plaintiff’s recovery will be reduced in
proportion to the degree that his own negligence (or other fault) was responsible for his
injury. In its modified form, recovery is barred if the plaintiff’s responsibility exceeds a
specific degree, such as 50%.
Contributory negligence. Negligence (or other fault) on the part of the plaintiff that
is wholly or partially responsible for his injury. In a few states, any degree of contributory
negligence will totally bar recovery.
Design defect. A defect resulting from a product that, although manufactured as it had
been designed, was not designed as safely as it should have been.
Economic damages. Out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the plaintiff, such as medical
bills or loss of income.
Failure to warn. A defect consisting of the defendant’s failure to provide adequate
warnings or instructions regarding the use of its product.
Government contractor defense. A rule established by the Supreme Court enabling
a defendant whose product complied with federal government contract specifications to
avoid liability in some cases. Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988).
CRS-3

---

IB97056
10-04-02
Government standards defense. A rule in a few states enabling a defendant whose
product complied with government safety standards to avoid liability or to establish a
presumption that its product was not defective.
Joint and several liability. The rule that each defendant who contributes to causing
a plaintiff’s injury may be held individually liable for the total damages.
Lawyers’ contingent fees. Fees payable only upon recovery of damages, based upon
a percentage of the recovery.
Manufacturing defect. A defect resulting from a product’s not having been
manufactured as it had been designed. Compare with “Design defect,” supra.
Market share liability. Liability for the percentage of a plaintiff’s damages equal to
the defendant’s market share of the injury-causing product; a few cases have held market
share liability applicable where a plaintiff cannot prove that a particular defendant
manufactured the injury-causing product.
Misuse of product. A form of contributory fault by a plaintiff; it may reduce or
eliminate a defendant’s liability.
Negligence. Breach of a duty to exercise due care; it is the traditional non-intentional
tort standard in cases not based upon strict liability.
No-fault recovery. Recovery permitted in the absence of fault; it is not the law in any
state with respect to products liability. If adopted in the product liability context it would
permit recovery in the absence not only of negligence (as strict tort liability does), but in the
absence of a product defect.
Non-economic damages. Damages payable for items other than out-of-pocket
expenses, such as pain and suffering or punitive damages. Statutory caps on non-economic
damages, however, are generally distinct from statutory caps on punitive damages.
Patent danger rule. The rule that a manufacturer is not liable for an injury caused by
a design defect if the danger should have been obvious to the product user.
Periodic payments of future damages. Payments by a defendant for a plaintiff’s
future expenses on a periodic basis rather than in a lump sum.
Post-manufacturing improvements. Improvements in a product’s design that occur
after an injury and which plaintiffs seek to introduce in court as evidence that an
injury-causing product was defective.
Punitive damages. Damages awarded, in addition to economic damages and other
non-economic damages, to punish a defendant for willful or wanton conduct.
Restatement (Second) of Torts. A statement of tort law written by legal scholars;
section 402A, which provides for strict tort liability for injuries caused by defective products,
has been adopted by most states. On May 20, 1997, the American Law Institute adopted
CRS-4

---

IB97056
10-04-02
Restatement of the Law (3d), Torts: Product Liability, which is intended to replace section
402A. See, National Law Journal, June 2, 1997.
State of the art defense. The defense that permits a defendant to avoid liability in a
design defect case if at the time of manufacture there was no safer design available, or in a
failure to warn case if at the time of manufacture there was no way the defendant could have
known of the danger he failed to warn against.
Statute of limitations. A statute specifying the number of years after injury occurs, or
is discovered, or its cause is discovered, within which suit must be filed.
Statute of repose. A statute specifying the number of years after a product is first sold
or distributed within which suit must be filed; it supplements the statute of limitations.
Manufacturers favor statutes of repose because they preclude recovery where products are
old; consumers oppose them because they result in suits being barred before injuries even
occur.
Strict tort liability. Liability established if a plaintiff proves that a product defect
caused an injury; the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant was negligent.
Useful life limitation. A period of time set forth by statute after which a product’s
useful life is deemed over and suit is barred or a presumption that the product was not
defective is created; this is similar to a statute of repose.
Workers’ compensation. Statutes in every state providing for limited no-fault
compensation against employers by workers injured on the job. Receipt of such
compensation ordinarily precludes a worker from suing his employer; it does not preclude
him from suing a product manufacturer.
Federal Statutes Enacted, 97th-106th Congresses
The 97th Congress enacted P.L. 97-45, the Product Liability Risk Retention Act of 1981.
The 98th Congress enacted P.L. 98-193, a clarification of the Product Liability Risk Retention
Act of 1981. This statute was intended to permit “product manufacturers, sellers, and
distributors to purchase . . . insurance on a group basis or to self-insure through insurance
cooperatives called ‘risk retention groups.’” S.Rept. 97-192, 97th Congress, 1st session.
Federal legislation was necessary to accomplish this because many states have laws that
would make the formation of such groups impractical on an interstate basis. The statute
therefore exempts purchasing groups and risk retention groups from most regulation by states
other than the ones in which they are chartered.
The 99th Congress enacted the Risk Retention Amendments of 1986, P.L. 99-563, which
expanded the scope of the Product Liability Risk Retention Act of 1981 to enable risk
retention groups and purchasing groups to provide all types of liability insurance, not only
products liability insurance.
The 99th Congress also enacted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, P.L.
99-660, which has been amended by every subsequent Congress. As amended, the Act
CRS-5

---

IB97056
10-04-02
requires most persons suffering vaccine-related injuries, prior to filing a tort action, to seek
no-fault compensation through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
established by the Act. Under the Program, compensation for pain and suffering is limited
to $250,000. A party not satisfied with the compensation awarded under the Program may
file a tort action under state law, but subject to some limitations. Although recovery under
the Program is limited, it was hoped that “the relative certainty and generosity of the system’s
awards will divert a significant number of potential plaintiffs from litigation.” H.Rept.
99-908, Part 1, 99th Congress, 2d Session 13 (1986).
Claims under the Program are filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
Claims arising from vaccines administered prior to October 1, 1988 are paid from
appropriated funds; see 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(j), as amended by P.L. 103-66, section
13632(b). Claims arising from vaccines administered after September 30, 1988 are paid
from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, which is funded by an excise tax on
vaccines. The tax expired at the end of 1992, and amounts from the Trust Fund were
available only for payment of compensation with respect to vaccines administered before
October 1, 1992. However, on June 10, 1993, P.L. 103-43, section 2012, authorized the
Court of Federal Claims to continue to receive petitions for compensation for injuries or
death associated with the administration of a vaccine on or after October 1, 1992. Then, on
August 10, 1993, President Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993,
P.L. 103-66, which reimposed the excise tax and authorized the Trust Fund to pay
compensation for all claims arising from vaccines administered after September 30, 1988;
see 26 U.S.C. § 4131, as amended by P.L. 103-66, section 13421(a), and 26 U.S.C.
§ 9510(c)(1), as amended by P.L. 103-66, section 13421(b).
On August 17, 1994, the President signed into law the General Aviation Revitalization
Act, P.L. 103-298, which established an 18-year statute of repose (see glossary) for planes
with fewer than 20 seats that are not used in scheduled service. 49 U.S.C. § 40101 note.
The 104th Congress passed a products liability bill, H.R. 956, but failed to override
President Clinton’s veto of it.
The 105th Congress enacted H.R. 872, the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998
(P.L. 105-230), which limits the products liability under state law of biomaterials suppliers,
which it defines as an entity that supplies a component part or raw materials for use in the
manufacture of an implant.
The 106th Congress enacted H.R. 775, the Y2K Act (P.L. 106-37), which limits
contractual and tort liability under state law in suits, other than those for personal injury or
wrongful death, “in which the plaintiff’s alleged harm or injury arises from or is related to
an actual or potential Y2K failure . . . .” Limitations on tort liability include (1) a cap on
punitive damages, of the lesser of three times the amount awarded for compensatory damages
or $250,000, but the cap applies only to defendants who are individuals whose net worth
does not exceed $500,000 or organizations with fewer than 50 full-time employees, (2) a
“clear and convincing evidence” standard for the recovery of punitive damages, (3) the
elimination of joint and several liability except in cases of specific intent to injure or
knowing commission of fraud, and except in some cases in which damages against a
defendant are uncollectible, and (4) except in the case of an “intentional tort arising
CRS-6

---

IB97056
10-04-02
independent of a contract,” a prohibition on damages for economic loss, including lost profits
or sales.
LEGISLATION
H.R. 123 (Barr)
Firearms Heritage Protection Act of 2001. Introduced January 3, 2001; referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary. Would prohibit civil actions against manufacturers or sellers
for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition
unless the defendant had already been convicted of transferring a firearm with knowledge
that it would be used to commit a violent crime. It would not, however, prohibit civil actions
against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.
H.R. 736 (Andrews)
Introduced February 27, 2001; referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. Provides that any person who brings a product
liability action for injuries sustained from the use of a product that is not in compliance with
a voluntary or mandatory standard issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall
recover treble damages.
H.R. 860 (Sensenbrenner)
Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiform Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2001. Introduced March
6, 2001; referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by the Committee on the
Judiciary on March 12, 2001 (H.Rept. 107-14). Passed by the House on March 14, 2001.
Section 2 of H.R. 860 would authorize multidistrict litigation panels that adjudicate pretrial
matters in consolidated lawsuits (typically mass torts) to retain jurisdiction for trial instead
of remanding the suits back to the districts where they were originally filed. Section 3 of
H.R. 860 would give federal district courts, in three circumstances, “jurisdiction of any civil
action involving minimal diversity between adverse parties that arise from a single accident,
where at least 25 natural persons have either died or incurred injury . . . and, in the case of
injury, the injury has resulted in damages that exceed $150,000 per person. “Minimal
diversity” means that a least one plaintiff and one defendant are from different states; current
law requires “complete diversity,” which precludes federal court jurisdiction if any plaintiff
and any defendant are from the same state.
H.R. 940 (Chabot)
Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 2001. Introduced March 8,
2001; referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Would establish an 18-year statute of
repose for durable goods (i.e., would prohibit products liability suits alleging injuries caused
by defects in durable goods more than 18 years after the date on which the durable good was
delivered to its first purchaser or lessee). H.R. 940 would supersede state statutes of repose.
It would define “durable good” essentially as a capital good and not a consumer product.
H.R. 1805 (Hutchinson)
Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2001. Introduced May 10, 2001; referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Title I would
limit liability in any “civil action” (not just products liability actions) against a “small
CRS-7

---

IB97056
10-04-02
business,” which it would define as a business, local government, or organization with fewer
than 25 full-time employees on the date the civil action is filed. In such actions, H.R. 1805
would cap punitive damages, except for intentional torts and in cases specified in section
105, at the lesser of three times the total economic and noneconomic damages, or $250,000;
and would, except in cases specified in section 105, eliminate joint and several liability for
noneconomic damages. A state could enact a new statute to make Title I inapplicable in such
state. Title II would make product sellers other than manufacturers liable for injuries caused
by defective products only if they were negligent or breached an express warranty, or if the
manufacturer could not be sued or would be unable to pay a judgment against it.
H.R. 1966 (Hostettler)
Interstate Commerce Freedom Act. Introduced May 23, 2001; referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Would make a
manufacturer immune from products liability “if a proximate cause of the harm was a
criminal or intentionally tortious act of a person other than the manufacturer.” Would also
make a manufacturer immune from products liability “unless the manufacturer failed to
substantially comply with a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of
such product and such failure was a proximate cause of the harm.” This would apparently
immunize manufacturers where there is no applicable state or federal statute. It is unclear
whether the courts would deem a failure to comply with a regulation issued pursuant to a
state or federal statute to constitute failure to comply with a “statute.” This bill would
preempt state laws except for any “that provides greater protection from liability for
manufacturers.”
H.R. 2037 (Stearns)
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Introduced May 25, 2001; referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary. As approved by
the Energy and Commerce Committee on September 25, 2002, H.R. 2037 provides that
licensed manufacturers and licensed sellers of a “firearm or ammunition product,” or a trade
association representing them, would not be liable under state law for “harm caused by the
criminal, suicidal, negligent, or other unlawful misuse of such firearm or ammunition
product by any other person.” To be immune from liability, however, a manufacturer, seller,
or a trade association’s conduct would have to be “lawful under applicable Federal, State,
or local law.” In addition, to be immune from liability, a manufacturer, seller, or trade
association would have to notify the Secretary of Commerce of its name, address, and CEO;
the Secretary of Commerce would maintain and update the list and may publish it in the
Federal Register. On April 18, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer
Protection of the Committee on Energy and Commerce held hearings on the bill. On May
9, 2002, the subcommittee adopted a Manager’s Amendment by voice vote, approving it for
full committee consideration. The full committee approved it, without further amendment,
on September 25, 2002. H.R. 2037 is similar to S. 2268.
S. 865 (McConnell)
Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2001. Introduced May 10, 2001; referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary. S. 865 appears to be substantively identical to H.R. 1805,
except that section 105 in S. 865, but not in H.R. 1805, provides that the bill’s cap on
punitive damages, and elimination of joint and several liability for noneconomic damages,
would not apply to civil actions for damages caused by a hate crime.
CRS-8

---

IB97056
10-04-02
S. 2268 (Miller)
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Introduced April 25, 2002; referred to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Similar to H.R. 2037.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress. House. Common Sense Product Liability Legal Reform Act of 1996;
conference report to accompany H.R. 956. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1996.
35 p. (104th Congress, 2d session. H.Rept. 104-481)
U.S. Congress. House. Veto of H.R. 956 — Message from the President of the United
States. May 6, 1996. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1996. 27 p. (104th Congress,
2d session. House. Document 104-207)
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce. Common Sense Product Liability
Reform Act; report to accompany H.R. 917. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1995.
34 p. (104th Congress, 1st session. H.Rept. 104-63, part 1)
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Hazardous Materials. Common Sense Product Liability Reform Act. Hearing,
104th Congress, 1st session. February 21, 1995. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1995. 77 p.
“Serial no. 104-7"
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and Finance. Hearings, 104th Congress, 1st session. January 19 and February 10, 1995.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1995. 338 p.
“Serial no. 104-2"
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection. Product liability reform. Hearings, 105th Congress,
1st session. April 8, 30, 1997. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1997. 160 p.
“Serial no. 105-31"
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Education and Labor. Subcommittee on Labor
Standards. Workmen’s compensation. Hearings, 100th Congress, 2d session, on H.R.
1115. September 27, 1988. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1988. 45 p.
“Serial no. 100-96"
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. National Vaccine
Childhood Injury Act of 1986; report to accompany H.R. 5546. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1986, 78 p. (99th Congress, 2d session. H.Rept. 99-908, part 1)
——- Risk Retention Amendments of 1986; report to accompany H.R. 5225. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1986. 30 p. (99th Congress, 2d session. H.Rept. 99-865)
CRS-9

---

IB97056
10-04-02
——- Uniform Product Safety Act of 1988; report to accompany H.R. 1115. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print Off., 1988. 110 p. (100th Congress, 2d session. H.Rept. 100-748, part
1)
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on
Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness. Hearings, 103d Congress, 2d
session, on H.R. 1910. February 2, April 21, and May 3, 1994. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1994. 505 p.
“Serial no. 103-105"
——- Hearings, 100th Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 2238. May 5, 20, June 18, and July
9, 1987. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1988. 666 p.
“Serial no. 100-61"
——- Product liability, part 2. Hearings, 100th Congress. July 21, 23, August 6, October
7, 1987. 537 p.
“Serial no. 100-102"
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Health
and the Environment. Childhood immunization program. Hearing, 100th Congress, 1st
session. March 11, 1987. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1987. 46 p.
“Serial no. 100-31"
——- Childhood immunizations. 99th Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1986. 106 p. (CP 99-LL)
——- Federal childhood immunization program. Hearing, 99th Congress, 2d session.
March 10, 1986. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1986. 81 p.
“Serial no. 99-98"
——- Vaccine injury compensation. Hearings, 99th Congress, 2d session, on H.R. 1780,
H.R. 4777, and H.R. 5184. July 25, 1986. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1987.
266 p.
“Serial no. 99-158"
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations. Proceedings of a workshop on vaccine innovation and supply.
Report prepared by Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1986. (99th Congress, 2d session. House. Committee print
99-II)
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Product Liability
Risk Retention Act of 1980; report together with minority views to accompany H.R.
6152. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 49 p. (96th Congress, 2d session.
H.Rept. 96-791)
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on
Consumer Protection and Finance. Product liability. Hearings, 96th Congress, 2d
CRS-10

---

IB97056
10-04-02
session, on H.R. 5626 and H.R. 7000. April 23, 29, and 30, 1980. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 420 p.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiform
Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2001; report to accompany H.R. 860. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 2000. 42 p. (107th Congress, 1st session. H.Rept. 107-14)

——-Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2000; report to accompany H.R. 2366.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2000. 50 p. (106th Congress, 2nd session. H.Rept.
106-494, Part I)
——-Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act of 1995; report to accompany H.R. 956.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1995. 44 p. (104th Congress, 1st session. H.Rept.
104-64, Part I)
——- Product liability and legal reform. Hearing, 104th Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 10.
February 13, 1995. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1995. 251 p.
“Serial no. 4"
——- Product Liability Fairness Act. Hearing, 103rd Congress, 2d session, on S. 687.
March 15, 1994. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1995. 169 p.
“Serial no. J-103-45"
——- Product liability reform. Hearing, 105th Congress, 1st session. April 10, 1997.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1997. 255 p.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Administrative Law
and Governmental Relations. Government Contractors’ Product Liability and
Indemnification Acts. Hearings, 98th Congress, 2d session, on H.R. 4083 and H.R.
4199. March 14 and 15, 1984. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1984. 170 p.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Economic and
Commercial Law. Aviation Revitalization Act of 1993; report to accompany S. 1458.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1994. 12 p. (103rd Congress, 2d session. H.Rept.
103-525, Part II)
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Monopolies and
Commercial Law. Aviation tort reform. Hearings, 99th Congress, 2d session, on H.R.
4142. August 14, 1986. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1988. 83 p.
“Serial no. 99-129"
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Aviation
Revitalization Act of 1993; report to accompany S. 1458. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1994. 8 p. (103rd Congress, 2d session. H.Rept. 103-525, Part I)
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Rules. Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 956,
the Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act of 1995; report to accompany H.Res.
109. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1995. 20 p. (104th Congress, 1st session.
H.Rept. 104-72)
CRS-11

---

IB97056
10-04-02
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on
Transportation, Aviation, and Materials. Aviation product liability: the effect on
technology application. Hearings, 99th Congress, 1st session. October 22, 1985.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985. 128 p.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Subcommittee on
Technology and Competitiveness. Product liability. Hearings, 102d Congress, 2d
session. August 4, 1992. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1992. 459 p.
——- Product liability. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., December 1992. (102d
Congress, 2d session. House. Committee print Serial W)
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Small Business. Subcommittee on General
Oversight and Minority Enterprise. Product liability insurance ratemaking. Hearings,
96th Congress, 2d session. October 1, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980.
45 p.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means. Subcommittee on Select Revenue
Measures. Funding of the childhood vaccine program. Hearing, 100th Congress, 1st
session. March 5, 1987. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1988. 134 p.
“Serial no. 100-18"
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Clarification of the Risk Retention Act; report to accompany S. 1046. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983. 5 p. (98th Congress, 1st session. S.Rept. 98-172)
——- Year 2000 (Y2K) Act; report to accompany S. 96. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1999. 14 p. (106th Congress, 1st session. S.Rept. 106-10)
——- General Aviation Accident Liability Standards Act of 1986; report to accompany S.
2794. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1986. 18 p. (99th Congress, 2d session.
S.Rept. 99-428)
——- General Aviation Accident Liability Standards Act; report to accompany S. 473.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1988. 23 p. (100th Congress, 2d session. S.Rept.
100-378)
——- General Aviation Accident Liability Standards Act of 1989; report together with
minority views, on S. 640. November 12, 1989. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
989. 22 p. (101st Congress, 1st session. S.Rept. 101-223)
——- Product Liability Act of 1982; report to accompany S. 2631. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1982. 58 p. (97th Congress, 2d session. S.Rept. 97-670)
——- Product Liability Act; report to accompany S. 44. May 23, 1984. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1984. 110 p. (98th Congress, 2d session. S.Rept. 98-476)
CRS-12

---

IB97056
10-04-02
——- Product Liability Fairness Act; report together with additional and minority views, on
S. 640. November 14, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1991. 91 p. (102d
Congress, 1st session. S.Rept. 102-215)
——- Product Liability Fairness Act; report together with minority views, on S. 565. April
18, 1995. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1995. 80 p. (104th Congress, 1st
session. S.Rept. 104-69)
——- Product Liability Reform Act; report together with additional and minority views, on
S. 687. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1993. 85 p. (103rd Congress, 1st session.
S.Rept. 103-203)
——- Product Liability Reform Act; report to accompany S. 2760. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1986. 124 p. (99th Congress, 2d session. S.Rept. 99-422)
——- Product Liability Reform Act of 1997; report to accompany S. 648. June 19, 1997.
Washington, 1997. 95 p. (105th Congress, 1st session. S.Rept. 105-32)
——- Product Liability Reform Act; report together with additional and minority views, on
S. 1400. June 29, 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990. 76 p. (101st
Congress, 2d session. S.Rept. 101-356)
——- Product Liability Risk Retention Act of 1979. Hearings, 96th Congress, 2d session,
on S. 1789 and H.R. 6152. April 22 and July 30, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1980. 280 p.
——- Product Liability Risk Retention Act of 1980; report to accompany H.R. 6152.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 19 p. (96th Congress, 2d session. S.Rept.
96-984)
——- Product Liability Risk Retention Act of 1981; report to accompany S. 1096.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. (97th Congress, 1st session. S.Rept. 97-172)
——- Risk Retention Amendments of 1986; report to accompany S. 2129. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1986. 28 p. (99th Congress, 2d session. S.Rept. 99-294)
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Subcommittee on Aviation. General Aviation Accident Liability Standards Act of
1987. Hearing, 100th Congress, 1st session, on S. 473. December 3, 1987.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1987. 133 p. (S.Hrg. 100-480)
——- General Aviation Accident Liability Standards. Hearing, 99th Congress, 2d session.
June 18, 1986. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1986. 62 p. (S.Hrg. 99-837)
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce, and Tourism. Hearing, 104th
Congress, 1st session, on S. 565, the Product Liability Fairness Act of 1995. April 3-4,
1995. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1995. 710 p. (S.Hrng. 104- 435)
CRS-13

---

IB97056
10-04-02
——- Product Liability Reform: Success of the General Aviation Revitalization Act.
Hearing, 105th Congress, 1st session. March 6, 1997. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1999. 61 p. (S. Hrng. 105-833)
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Subcommittee on the Consumer. Dodd and Gorton no-fault alternatives to S. 100.
Hearings, 99th Congress, 1st session. June 18 and 25, 1985. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1985. 190 p. (S.Hrg. 99-177)
——- Hearing, 103rd Congress, 1st session, on S. 687, the Product Liability Fairness Act.
September 23, 1993. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1994. 151 p.
——- Hearings, 99th Congress, 1st session, on S. 100. March 21, 1985. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1985. 237 p. (S.Hrg. 99-84)
——- Product liability. Hearings, 102d Congress, 1st session. September 12 and 19, 1991.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1991. 234 p. (S.Hrg. 102-727).
——- Product Liability Act. Hearings, 98th Congress, 1st session, on S. 44. April 6 and 27,
1983. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983. 374 p.
“Serial no. 98-33"
——- Product Liability Act. Hearing, 98th Congress, 2d session, on S. 44. Part 2. March
5, 1984. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1984. 495 p. (S.Hrg. 98-302, pt. 2)
——- Product liability reform. Hearings, 97th Congress, 2d session, on S. 2631. March 9,
12, June 30, July 1, 1982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 408 p.
“Serial no. 97-109"
——- Product liability reform. Hearing, 100th Congress, 1st session. Sept. 18, 1987.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1987. 79 p. (S.Hrg. 100-342)
——- Product Liability Reform Act. Hearings, 101st Congress, 2d session, on S. 1400.
February 22, April 5, and May 10, 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990.
650 p. (S.Hrg. 101-743)
——- Product liability reform proposals. Hearings, 99th Congress, 2d session. May 19-20,
1986. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1986. 199 p. (S.Hrg. 99-1004)
——- Product Liability Voluntary Claims and Uniform Standards Act. Hearings, 99th
Congress, 2d session, on S. 1999. February 27 and March 11, 1986. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1986. 303 p. (S.Hrg. 99-733)
——- Risk Retention Amendments of 1986. Hearings, 99th Congress, 2d session, on S.
2129. March 20, 1986. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1986. 75 p. “S.Hrg.
99-722"
CRS-14

---

IB97056
10-04-02
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Product Liability Reform Act.
Hearings, 99th Congress, 2d session, on S. 2760. September 9-10, 1986. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1987. 684 p. (S.Hrg. 99-1005)
“Serial no. J-99-127"
——- Punitive Damages: Tort Reform and FDA Defenses. Hearings, 104th Congress, 1st
session, on S. 671 and S. 672. April 4 and July 26, 1995. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1996. 191 p. (S.Hrg. 104-718)
“Serial no. J-104-16"
——- Uniform Federal Product Liability Law. Hearings, 102d Congress, 2d session, on S.
640. August 5, 1992. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1992. 302 p. (S.Hrg.
102-1047)
“Serial no. J-102-80"
——- General Aviation Accident Liability Standards Act of 1989; report together with
additional and minority views, on S. 640. May 23, 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1990. 33 p. (101st Congress, 2d session. S.Rept. 101-303)
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Courts and
Administrative Practice. Hearings, 100th Congress, 2d session, on S. 473. June 21,
1988. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print Off., 1989. 156 p.
“Serial no. J-100-78"
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Human Resources. National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1985. Hearings, 99th Congress, 1st session, on
S. 827. July 18, 1985. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985. 393 p. (S.Hrg.
99-222)
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Calfee, John E. and Clifford Winston. The consumer welfare effects of liability for pain and
suffering: An exploratory analysis. Brookings papers on economic activity:
microeconomics, no. 1, 1993: 133-196.
Consumer Federation of America. The benefits of the modernization of the tort law in the
context of the social movement for improved safety and quality in the national
economy. Washington, September 1987.
Phillips, Jerry J. Products liability in a nutshell. St. Paul, Minn.: West Pub. Co., 1988. (3rd
ed.)
Rand Corporation Institute for Civil Justice. Product liability and the business sector. Santa
Monica, CA, January 1989.
——- What we know and don’t know about product liability. Santa Monica, CA, 1993.
CRS-15

---

IB97056
10-04-02
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Domestic Commerce. Product liability
insurance: Assessment of related problems and issues; staff study. Washington, March
1976.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Interagency Task Force on Product Liability. Briefing
report, Washington, January 1977; final report, Washington, November 1977.
——- Draft uniform product liability law (with analysis). Federal register, v. 44, Jan. 12,
1979: 2996.
——- Final report of the insurance study. 1 v. Washington, 1977.
——- Final report of the legal study. 7 v. Washington, 1977.
——- Final report of the industry study. 2 v. Washington, 1977.
——- Model Uniform Product Liability Act (with analysis). Federal register, v. 44, Oct. 31,
1979: 62714.
——- Options paper on product liability and accident compensation issues. Federal register,
v. 43, Apr. 6, 1978: 14612.
U.S. General Accounting Office. Product liability: Extent of “litigation explosion” in
Federal courts questioned. Jan. 28, 1988. [Washington] 1988. (GAO/HRD-88 36BR)
——- Product liability: Verdicts and case resolutions in five states. [Washington] September
1989. (GAO/HRD-89-99)
CRS Reports
CRS Report RS20519. Asbestos Compensation Act of 2000, by Henry Cohen.
CRS Report RL30088. Year 2000 Liability Legislation: a Legal Analysis, by Charles V.
Dale.
CRS Report RS20091. Planned Federal Lawsuit Against Tobacco Companies to Recover
Health Care Costs, by Henry Cohen.
CRS Report RS20126. Gun Industry Liability: Lawsuits and Legislation, by Henry Cohen
CRS Report 95-797. Federal Tort Reform Legislation: Constitutionality and Summaries of
Selected Statutes, by Henry Cohen.
CRS-16

---