Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1998
Publication Information
24 William Mitchell Law Review 1 (1998)
Abstract
This Article compares the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability with Minnesota products liability law. The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability provides a yardstick for measuring products liability law in each individual state. Minnesota's law is largely similar to the rules set out in the Restatement. While Minnesota has not yet adopted all of the positions in all of the rules, the Minnesota Supreme Court has taken positions on the rules governing liability, which are substantially the same. It no longer seems possible to argue that negligence principles do not control in cases involving design defect and failure to warn. The strict liability vernacular may still be used in design defect cases, but the important question is whether the supreme court's statement in Kallio v. Ford Motor Co., that proof of a feasible alternative is not part of the plaintiff's prima facie case in a design case, establishes a meaningful wall between the theories. This article proceeds on a section-by-section basis, explaining each section of the Restatement (Third) and comparing it to Minnesota law.
Repository Citation
Steenson, Michael K., "A Comparative Analysis of Minnesota Products Liability Law and the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability" (1998). Faculty Scholarship. 26.
https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/facsch/26