Deconstructing Fallacies in Products Liability Law to Provide a Remedy for Economic Loss

Abstract

For years, products liability law has failed to provide a remedy for consumers who suffer financial injury as a result of purchasing defective products manufacturers place and keep in the marketplace. The economic loss rule and defect manifestation requirements have, to date, foreclosed products liability claims when consumers suffer only economic injury and severely hampered recovery through other claims. Prior discussion of consumer economic loss litigation has been critical and embraced the necessity of the injury‐based economic loss rule and defect manifestation requirements to protect manufacturers from perceived endless liability. While a few scholars have addressed some of the deficiencies behind the economic loss rule, this article builds on those discussions, addressing for the first time the flawed rationales behind defect manifestation requirements, and deconstructs in detail the outdated and flawed assumptions or fallacies upon which the rationales behind both doctrines are based. After deconstructing and exposing the, at best, questionable assumptions behind the economic loss rule and defect manifestation requirements, the article advocates a novel expansion of products liability law that provides a remedy for consumer economic loss caused by dangerously defective products. This proposed framework provides the proper demarcation between contract and tort, is consistent with earlier justifications eliminating privity and negligence, better aligns consumer safety with manufacturers' economic interests, bridges the current liability gap, and streamlines existing litigation.