Order Code IB97056
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Products Liability:
A Legal Overview
Updated July 25, 2005
Henry Cohen and Nathan Brooks
American Law Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Glossary
Federal Statutes Enacted, 97th-108th Congresses
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Reports


IB97056
07-25-05
Products Liability: A Legal Overview
SUMMARY
Products liability refers to the liability of
furnish an incentive for the manufacture of
a manufacturer or seller for injury caused by
safe products. Manufacturers and their insur-
his product to the person or property of a
ers, by contrast, contend that many products
buyer or third party. Legal developments
liability judgments are unwarranted or exces-
starting in the 1960s, particularly the adoption
sive and that national uniformity in products
of strict tort liability, have made it substan-
liability law is needed. Therefore, they favor
tially easier for persons injured by defective
replacing the 50 state products liability laws
products to recover damages. Starting in the
with one federal law. In the 109th Congress,
1980s, however, many states enacted tort
several bills have been introduced that would
reform legislation that limited the rights of
affect various aspects of products liability law
injured parties. Advocates for consumers and
(H.R. 5, H.R. 534, H.R. 554, H.R. 650, H.R.
plaintiffs view strong products liability law as
800, H.R. 1360, H.R. 1363, H.R. 1757, H.R.
necessary to ensure adequate compensation
1957, H.R. 2357, S. 3, S. 354, S. 366, S. 367,
for injured workers and consumers and to
S. 397, S. 852, S. 908).
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB97056
07-25-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
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 November 3, 2003, Senate variations of the bill — S. 1805
and S. 1806 — were placed on the Senate calendar. On March 2, 2004, the Senate defeated
S. 1805.
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 March 11, 2004, the House passed H.R. 339, the Personal Responsibility in Food
Consumption Act, with amendments to the reported bill (H.Rept. 108-432). As passed, H.R.
339 would prohibit civil actions against a manufacturer or seller of a food, or against a food
trade association, for damages or other relief for injury resulting from weight gain, obesity,
or any health condition associated with weight gain or obesity. The bill would not, however,
prohibit (1) actions charging that a manufacturer or seller violated a relevant statute and the
violation proximately caused the weight gain, obesity, or health condition, (2) actions for
breach of express contract or express warranty, or (3) actions brought under the Federal
Trade Commission Act or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
On April 22, 2004, the Senate failed to achieve cloture on the debate on S. 2290, the
Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2004. For additional information, see CRS
Report RS21815, Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2004 (S. 2290, 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,
the Task Force found, were irrational premium setting procedures by insurance companies,
CRS-1

IB97056
07-25-05
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 (see “Glossary”
regarding terms used in this sentence). 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
07-25-05
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
07-25-05
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
07-25-05
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 feasible safer design available,
or in a failure to warn case if at the time of manufacture there was no reasonable way that 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-108th 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 Cong., 1st Sess. 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
07-25-05
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.
The 108th Congress enacted P.L. 108-7, Division L, § 102, of which repealed 1714-1717
of P.L. 107-296 (2002).
LEGISLATION
H.R. 5 (Gingrey), H.R. 534 (Cox)
Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act. Identical
bills. H.R. 534 introduced February 2, 2005; H.R. 5 introduced July 21, 2005. Referred to
House Judiciary Committee and House Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill would
limit liability for injuries caused not only by medical malpractice, but also by defective
medical products (e.g., drugs, medical devices). Among other things, the bill would impose
caps on punitive and non-economic damages in those states that do not have any such caps.
CRS-6

IB97056
07-25-05
The bill would eliminate punitive damages in injury claims involving medical products
approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or recognized as safe and effective
under FDA regulations. See CRS Report RS22054, Medical Malpractice Liability Reform:
H.R. 5 and H.R. 534, 109th Congress
, by Henry Cohen.
H.R. 554 (Keller)
Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. Introduced February 2, 2005.
Ordered to be reported favorably from the House Judiciary Committee on May 25, 2005.
H.R. 554 would prohibit civil actions against manufacturers and sellers of food, or against
food trade associations, for damages or other relief or injury resulting from weight gain,
obesity, or any health condition associated with weight gain or obesity. The bill would not,
however, prohibit (1) actions charging that a manufacturer or seller violated a relevant statute
and the violation proximately caused the weight gain, obesity, or health condition; (2) actions
for breach of express contract or express warranty; or (3) actions brought under the Federal
Trade Commission Act or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
H.R. 650 (Keller)
Vaccine Accessibility for Children and Seniors (VACS) Act. Introduced February 8,
2005. Referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Judiciary
Committee. H.R. 650 would amend the Public Health Service Act to create an exclusive
federal cause of action for claims of vaccine-related injury after January 1, 1988, other than
those handled through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The bill would
also allow for suspension of attorneys who repeatedly violate the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure with respect to the filing of frivolous vaccine-related claims. H.R. 650 would
also amend the procedures governing civil actions for vaccine-related injuries by requiring
reliable scientific evidence that demonstrates that the vaccine was the cause of the claimant’s
injury. In addition, the bill would require the United States Attorney General and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit a joint report containing
recommendations for making the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program more
efficient and less adversarial.
H.R. 800 (Stearns)
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Introduced February 15, 2005. Ordered
to be reported favorably with amendments from the House Judiciary Committee on may 25,
2005. The bill would prohibit suits, except in five circumstances, against manufacturers and
sellers of firearms and ammunition, and against trade associations, for damages arising from
the unlawful use of firearms or ammunition by others. Identical to S. 397. See CRS Report
RS22074, Limiting Tort Liability of Gun Manufacturers and Gun Sellers: Legal Analysis of
109th Congress Legislation
, by Henry Cohen.
H.R. 1360 (Kirk)
Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution (FAIR) Act. Introduced March 17, 2005.
Referred to House Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education and the
Workforce, and Financial Services Committees. H.R. 1360 would create a federal
administrative compensation program for asbestos claims. To handle these claims, the bill
would establish within the Department of Labor the Office of Asbestos Disease
Compensation. The Office would make awards to claimants from the Asbestos Injury Claims
Resolution Fund, which would be funded by contributions from defendants in pending
asbestos cases ($90 billion) and insurers of those defendants ($46 billion). The bill would
CRS-7

IB97056
07-25-05
establish ten levels of awards based on seriousness of injury and exposure to asbestos. See
CRS Report RS22088, Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005 (H.R. 1360, 109th
Congress)
, by Henry Cohen and Nathan Brooks.
H.R. 1363 (Chabot)
Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act. Introduced March 17, 2005.
Referred to House Judiciary Committee. The bill would create an 18-year statute of repose
protecting manufacturers and sellers in actions for damages to personal property involving
certain commercial products expected to last longer than three years. The statute of repose
would also apply to a damages action for death or personal injury where the victim is eligible
to receive workers’ compensation and the injury is not a “toxic” one. The statute of repose
would not apply to actions involving a “motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or train, that is used
primarily to transport passengers for hire,” and certain environmental damages. In addition,
for a covered product with an express warranty beyond 18 years, the statute of repose would
not apply until the end of the warranty.
H.R. 1757 (Andrews)
Introduced April 21, 2005. Referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House
Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill would require an award of treble damages to
any claimant suffering injury from a product that is not in compliance with a voluntary or
mandatory standard of the Consumer Products Safety Commission.
H.R. 1957 (Cannon)
The Asbestos Compensation Fairness Act of 2005. Introduced April 28, 2005.
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill would give federal courts original
jurisdiction over all asbestos claims and silica claims, and would establish the level of
physical impairment that claimants would have to show to receive compensation. H.R. 1957
would limit a defendant’s liability in asbestos and silica cases to that defendant’s percentage
of fault, and would eliminate punitive damages for asbestos claims and silica claims.
Claimants could recover no more than $250,000 for noneconomic damages, except that those
claimants suffering from mesothelioma could recover up to $500,000 for noneconomic
damages. Awards in asbestos and silica cases would be reduced by the amount of collateral
source compensation received by the claimants.
H.R. 2357 (Shuster)
The Respirator Access Assurance Act of 2005. Introduced May 23, 2005. Referred to
House Judiciary Committee and House Energy and Commerce Committee. H.R. 2357 would
shield manufacturers and sellers of respirators from liability for defective design or warning
in actions involving respirators that were approved by the National Institute on Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) and manufactured in compliance with NIOSH design and
labeling standards.
S. 3 (Gregg)
Protecting America in the War on Terror Act. Introduced January 24, 2005. Referred
to Senate Finance Committee. Subchapter B of the bill would create exclusive federal court
jurisdiction over injury claims regarding certain products developed as countermeasures to
bioterrorist attacks or for preventing pandemics/epidemics. Punitive damages and the
collateral source rule would be abolished for such claims, and noneconomic damages would
be capped at $250,000. Manufacturers of the aforementioned products could also benefit
CRS-8

IB97056
07-25-05
from the government contractor defense. Bill would also call for a study of litigation
surrounding the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and amend the Social
Security Act to make more children eligible to receive federally funded pediatric vaccines.
S. 354 (Ensign)
Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act. Introduced
February 10, 2005. Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions. S. 354 is similar to H.R. 534 in limiting liability for injuries caused by medical
malpractice and defective medical products (e.g., drugs, medical devices), the major
differences being that S. 354 would: (1) abolish the collateral source rule when applicable
law does not allow for subrogation; (2) provide no special protections for FDA-approved
products; (3) establish qualifications for expert witnesses; and (4) preempt state caps on non-
economic and punitive damages when such caps are higher than the bill’s. See CRS Report
RS22075, Medical Malpractice Liability Reform: S. 354, 109th Congress, by Henry Cohen.
S. 366 (Gregg)
Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act. Introduced February 10,
2005. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. With respect to claims concerning
obstetrical or gynecological goods or services, the bill would limit liability for injuries caused
not only by medical malpractice, but also by defective medical products (e.g., drugs, medical
devices). In addition, the bill would impose caps on punitive and non-economic damages
in those states that do not have any such caps.
S. 367 (Gregg)
Pregnancy and Trauma Care Access Protection Act. Introduced February 10, 2005.
Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill is identical to S. 366, except that S. 367
would also apply to claims concerning emergency or trauma goods or services.

S. 397 (Craig)
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Introduced February 16, 2005. Placed
on Senate Legislative Calendar. Identical to H.R. 800.
S. 852 (Specter)
Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution (FAIR) Act. Introduced April 19, 2005.
Ordered to be reported favorably with amendments from the Senate Judiciary Committee on
April 19, 2005. The bill would remove most asbestos claims from the tort system and create
an administrative compensation program for such claims. To handle these claims, the bill
would establish within the Department of Labor the Office of Asbestos Disease
Compensation. The Office would make awards to claimants from the Asbestos Injury Claims
Resolution Fund, which would be funded by contributions from defendants in pending
asbestos cases ($90 billion) and insurers of those defendants ($46 billion). The bill would
establish nine levels of awards based on seriousness of injury and exposure to asbestos. See
CRS Report RS22081, S. 852: the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005, by
Nathan Brooks.
S. 908 (McConnell)
The Commensense Consumption Act of 2005. Introduced April 26, 2005. Referred to
Senate Judiciary Committee. S. 908 would prohibit the filing of claims – and dismiss all
pending claims – against manufacturers, sellers, advertisers, marketers, and distributors of
CRS-9

IB97056
07-25-05
food if such claims are based on the plaintiff’s consumption of food and resulting obesity,
weight gain, or health conditions related to obesity or weight gain.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Rand Corporation Institute for Civil Justice. Asbestos litigation. Santa Monica, CA, 2005.
[http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG162.sum.pdf]
—— Product liability and the business sector. Santa Monica, CA, 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. Tort Costs: 2004 Update, Trends and Findings on the Costs of the U.S. Tort
System. [http://www.towersperrin.com/tillinghast/publications/reports/Tort_2004
/Tort.pdf]
Economic Policy Institute, The frivolous case for tort law change: Opponents of the legal
system exaggerate its costs, ignore its benefits, by Lawrence Chimerine and Ross
Eisenbrey, Washington, D.C., 2005. [http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp157]
Public Citizen’s Congress Watch, Federal asbestos legislation: The winners are . . .
Washington, D.C., May 2005. [http://www.citizen.org/documents/master%20report.pdf]
U.S. Council of Economic Advisors. Who Pays for Tort Liability Claims?: An Economic
Analysis of the U.S. Tort Liability System (April 2002).
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/tortliabilitysystem_apr02.pdf]
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.
CRS-10

IB97056
07-25-05
—— 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)
U.S. Congressional Budget Office. The Economics of U.S. Tort Liability: A Primer.
(October 2003) [Washington] 2003
[ftp://ftp.cbo.gov/46xx/doc4641/10-22-TortReform-Study.pdf]
CRS-11

IB97056
07-25-05
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL32286. 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 RS21815. Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2004 (S. 2290, 108th
Congress), by Henry Cohen.
CRS Report RS22081. S. 852: Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005, by
Nathan Brooks.
CRS Report RS22088. Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005 (H.R. 1360, 109th
Congress), by Henry Cohen and Nathan Brooks.
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 RS22054. Medical Malpractice Liability Reform: H.R. 534, 109th Congress, by
Henry Cohen.
CRS Report RS22075. Medical Malpractice Liability Reform: S. 354, 109th Congress, by
Henry Cohen.
CRS Report RS22074. Limiting Tort Liability of Gun Manufacturers and Gun Sellers: Legal
Analysis of 109th Congress Legislation, by Henry Cohen.
CRS Report RL32560. Selected Products Liability Issues: A Fifty State Survey, by Nathan
Brooks and Cassandra Foley.
CRS-12