Order Code IB97056
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Products Liability:
A Legal Overview
Updated August 15, 2003
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-107th Congresses
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Reports

---

IB97056
08-15-03
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
08-15-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On November 25, 2002, H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was signed by
the President and became P.L. 107-296. It contains three sections that limit products liability
of various defendants: section 304 immunizes manufacturers and administrators of smallpox
vaccine from liability, section 863 limits the liability of sellers of anti-terrorism technology,
and sections 1714-1717 limit the liability of manufacturers and administrators of the
components and ingredients of vaccines. These provisions are discussed in CRS Report
RL31649.
On February 20, 2003, the President signed H.J.Res. 2, 108th Congress (P.L. 108-7).
Division L, § 102, of the statute repealed sections 1714-1717 of P.L. 107-296 (2002). These
are the sections of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that amended the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program to make the program applicable to components and
ingredients of vaccines, and which was apparently intended to prevent lawsuits alleging
injuries caused by Thimerosal. See CRS Report RL31649.
On April 9, 2003, the House passed H.R. 1036, 108th Congress, the Protection of Lawful
Commerce in Arms Act.
H.R. 1036 would prohibit lawsuits, except in specified
circumstances, against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm or ammunition, or a trade
association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or
ammunition. For additional information, see H.Rept. 108-59, 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (2003),
and CRS Report RS21486.
On April 30, 2003, the President signed into law H.R. 1770, 108th Congress, the
Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003, P.L. 108-20, to provide benefits for
certain individuals with injuries resulting from administration of a smallpox vaccine. For
additional information, see CRS Report RL31960.
On July 30, 2003, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported S. 1125, with amendments
(S.Rept. 108-118, 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (2003)). For additional information, see CRS Report
RS21540, Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2003 (S. 1125, 108th Congress).
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,
CRS-1

---

IB97056
08-15-03
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
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 through 1990s and to the present day.
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.
CRS-2

---

IB97056
08-15-03
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
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.
CRS-3

---

IB97056
08-15-03
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).
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.
CRS-4

---

IB97056
08-15-03
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
Restatement of the Law (3d), Torts: Product Liability, which is intended to replace section
402A.
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-107th 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.
CRS-5

---

IB97056
08-15-03
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
requires most persons suffering vaccine-related injuries, prior to filing a tort action, to file
a claim in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for 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 Cong., 2d Sess. 13 (1986).
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 . . . .”
The 107th Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), three
sections of which limit the products liability of various defendants: section 304 immunizes
manufacturers and administrators of smallpox vaccine from liability, section 863 limits the
liability of sellers of anti-terrorism technology, and sections 1714-1717 limit the liability of
manufacturers and administrators of the components and ingredients of vaccines. These
provisions are discussed in CRS Report RL31649. Sections 1714-1717 were repealed by
P.L. 108-7 (2003).
LEGISLATION
P.L. 108-7, H.J.Res. 2
Signed by the President on February 20, 2003. Division L, § 102, of the statute repealed
1714-1717 of P.L. 107-296 (2002). These are the sections of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 that amended the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to make the program
applicable to components and ingredients of vaccines, and which was apparently intended
to prevent lawsuits alleging injuries caused by Thimerosal. See CRS Report RL31649.
Other bills that would have repealed sections 1714-1717 include H.R. 237, H.R. 248,
H.R. 484, S. 41, and S. 105.
CRS-6

---

IB97056
08-15-03
H.R. 339 (Keller)
Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. Introduced January 27, 2003;
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Hearings held on June 19, 2003, by the
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. H.R. 339 would prohibit products
liability suits against a manufacturer, distributor, or seller of a food or non-alcoholic
beverage product intended for human consumption unless the plaintiff proves that, at the
time of sale, the product was not in compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements.
H.R. 357 (Everett)
Introduced January 27, 2003; referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Would
“prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers,
distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the
misuse of their products by others.”
H.R. 405 (Andrews)
Introduced February 3, 2003; referred to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Energy
and Commerce. Would “provide that a person who brings a product liability action in a
Federal or State court for injuries sustained from a product that is not in compliance with a
voluntary or mandatory standard issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission may
recover treble damages.”
H.R. 865 (Waxman)
Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003. Introduced February 13,
2003; referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Energy and the Workforce.
Would establish a Smallpox Vaccine Injury Compensation Program under which persons
suffering injury or death from a smallpox vaccine may petition for compensation under
procedures and standards that follow those applicable under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program.
H.R. 1036 (Stearns)
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Reported by the Committee on the
Judiciary on April 7, 2003 (H.Rept. 108-59, 108th Cong., 1st Sess.), and passed by the House
on April 9, 2003. Would prohibit lawsuits, except in specified circumstances, against a
manufacturer or seller of a firearm or ammunition, or a trade association, for damages
resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition. See CRS Report
RS21486 for a legal analysis of the bill.
H.R. 1114 (Kirk)
Asbestos Compensation Act of 2003. Introduced March 6, 2003; referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary. Would establish, in the Department of Justice, the Office of
Asbestos Compensation (AOC), and would establish in the OAC an Asbestos Compensation
Fund for the purpose of providing payments to claimants who have asbestos-related illnesses.
Except for those filing claims under a workers’ compensation law or veterans’ benefits
program, all asbestos claimants would have to found of medically eligible in order to receive
compensation. Claimants would name as defendants persons who may be responsible for
their asbestos-related illness, except for the federal or a state government. Defendants would
be required to make settlement offers, and the Trustee of the Fund would make an offer of
compensation to the claimant. If the claimant rejects any defendant’s offer and the Trustee’s
CRS-7

---

IB97056
08-15-03
offer, the claimant may elect an administrative adjudication under the bill or may opt out and
sue in state or federal court. In an administrative adjudication, a claimant would be entitled
to compensatory damages to the extent provided by applicable law, but no damages for
enhanced risk of a future condition, and punitive damages would be limited to 3 times
compensatory damages. The Fund would be financed by defendants, after a one-time loan
of federal funds.
H.R. 1349 (Burton)
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Improvement Act of 2003. Introduced
March 24, 2003; referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Would amend the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
H.R. 1586 (Cannon)
Asbestos Compensation Fairness Act of 2003. Introduced April 3, 2003; referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary. Designed “[t]o provide for the fair and efficient judicial
consideration of personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of asbestos exposure,
to ensure that individuals who suffer impairment, now or in the future, from illnesses caused
by exposure to asbestos receive compensation for their injuries, and for other purposes.”
H.R. 1737 (Dooley)
Asbestos Victims’ Compensation Act of 2003. Introduced April 10, 2003; referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary. Designed “[t]o provide for the fair and efficient judicial
consideration of personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of asbestos exposure,
to ensure that individuals who suffer harm, now or in the future, from illnesses caused by
exposure to asbestos receive compensation for their injuries, and for other purposes.”
P.L. 108-20, H.R. 1770
Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003. Signed by the President on
April 30, 2003. To provide benefits for certain individuals with injuries resulting from
administration of a smallpox vaccine. For additional information, see CRS Report RL31960.
Other versions of this bill included H.R. 1413, H.R. 1463, S. 15 (Title I), and S. 719.
H.R. 2813 (Chabot)
Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2003. Introduced July 22, 2003; referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. In civil actions
against small businesses (defined as businesses with fewer than 25 full-time employees),
H.R. 2813 would (1) cap punitive damages at the lesser of three times the economic and
noneconomic damages awarded, or $250,000, except that the cap would not apply “if the
court finds that the plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant
acted with specific intent to cause the type of harm for which the action was brought,” and
(2) eliminate joint and several liability. States, however, would be permitted to enact laws
to make this provision inapplicable. H.R. 2813 would also, in any product liability action,
allow a product seller other than a manufacturer to be held liable only if it had been negligent
or made an express warranty, or “if the manufacturer is not subject to service of process
under the laws of any State in which the action may be brought,” or “the court determines
that the claimant is or would be unable to enforce a judgment against the manufacturer.” See
S. 1546, below.
CRS-8

---

IB97056
08-15-03
S. 413 (Nickles)
Asbestos Claims Criteria and Compensation Act of 2003. Introduced February 13,
2003; referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Would prohibit lawsuits “alleging a
nonmalignant asbestos claim in the absence of a prima facie showing of physical impairment
as a result of a medical condition to which exposure to asbestos was a substantial
contributing factor.”
S. 659 (Craig)
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Introduced March 19, 2003; referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Would prohibit lawsuits, except in specified
circumstances, against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm or ammunition, or a trade
association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or
ammunition.
S. 754 (Frist)
Improved Vaccine Affordability and Availability Act. Introduced April 1, 2003;
referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Would amend the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
S. 1125 (Hatch)
Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution (FAIR) Act of 2003. Introduced May 22,
2003; referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which held hearing on it on June 4, 2003
and reported it, with amendments, on July 10, 2003 (S.Rept. 108-118). Would create a
federal compensation program for asbestos victims, funded by asbestos defendants and their
insurers. See CRS Report RS21540 for a more detailed summary of the bill.
S. 1546 (McConnell)
Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2003. Introduced July 31, 2003; referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary. S. 1546 is almost identical to H.R. 2813, 108th Congress,
and the above summary of H.R. 2813 applies fully to S. 1546.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
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.
Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, U.S. Tort Costs: 2000, Trends and Findings on the Costs of the
U.S. Tort System (February 2002).
U.S. Council of Economic Advisors. Who Pays for Tort Liability Claims?: An Economic
Analysis
of
the
U. S .
To r t
Li ab i l i t y
S ystem
(April
2002).
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/tortliabilitysystem_apr02.pdf]
CRS-9

---

IB97056
08-15-03
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 RS21398. Asbestos Litigation: Prospects for Legislative Resolution, by Edward
Rappaport.
CRS Report RS21540. Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2003 (S. 1125, 108th
Congress), by Henry Cohen.
CRS Report 95-797. Federal Tort Reform Legislation: Constitutionality and Summaries of
Selected Statutes, by Henry Cohen.
CRS Report RL31649. Homeland Security Act of 2002: Tort Liability Provisions, by Henry
Cohen.
CRS Report RS20126. Gun Industry Liability: Lawsuits and Legislation, by Henry Cohen.
CRS Report RS21486. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, H.R. 1036, 108th
Congress: Legal Analysis, by Henry Cohen.
CRS-10

---