Research On19-20Century American Product Liability Legal System Evolution

The U.S. legal system was facing uncertainties initially. Due to the accumulationof knowledge and learning English common law, the United States adopted commonlaw eventually. On the one hand, the courts could play a significant role in the systemby virtue of the right of judicial review, especially courts reaffirmed the legitimacy ofinstitution of company, so courts could be more likely to play stable expectations rolein the economic disputes. On the other hand, courts took the law as the tool topromote economic development on the rise of instrumental legal concept. Thereforein the process of evolution of the legal system, courts played an important role.In the early19th century, American market economy began to rise, butits industrialized levels obviously lagged behind that of Britain. In the process ofmarket economy development, product liability issues began to emerge. Under thefaith of freedom contract, the experience to solve the problem of the product liabilityin England was rearranged and used to solve the American problems. The caveatemptor and the privities of contract began to apply in the United States. The systemwas beneficial to encourage production, but obviously insufficient to the protection ofconsumer interests. System operation was characterized by the lack of fair andefficiency first.At the beginning of the20th century to the1960s, it was an important evolutionperiod of the product liability law system in America. It was since1894that theAmerican industrialized levels caught up with and surpassed Britain’s. At the sametime, increasing industrial development gave rise to accidents, the food and drugmarkets were full of frauds. The original British judicial experience could not solvethe problem of the American product liability. Since the end of the19th century,Muckraking campaign news constantly was emerging. From1900to1917, theUnited States started a social progress movement. The result was to strengthenthe awareness of protection social vulnerable groups. The leading case wasMacpherson v. Brick Mortor Co. case in1916, the court turned to apply empiricalrules-tort liability rules to solve the problem of product liability. In this case, judgesrejected the privity of contract. The relative evidence rules developed, such as the res ipsa loquitur, express warranty and implied warranty. The system was to encourageproduction and began to consider protecting the interests of the consumers. Systemoperation was characterized by efficiency first with fairness.Keynesian economic ideas prevailed among the United States since the1960, theU.S. economic was prosperous. But the product liability problems became mostserious. Keynesian theory and the President Kennedy views about consumer’s fourkinds of rights gave rise to the new change about social belief. The society attachedgreat importance to the fairness.Greenman v Ubra Electric Power Co., case in1963,the judges decided to apply empirical rules-strict liability of tort law rules to solve theproblem of product liability. The institution began to emphasize the protection ofconsumer interests, but obviously affected the interests of the manufacturers. Systemoperation was characterized by fairness first with efficiency.The U.S. economy was stuck in stagflation during the1970s. In the early1980s,according to supply-side economic thought, President Ronald Reagan positivelyreduced burden of the enterprise. Due to the efforts of the manufacturer and theinsurance company, the product liability law had been seeking to balance the interestsbetween producers and consumers after1980s. The courts applied strict liabilitytowards alleviation. This rules needed to determine whether the product had defects ornot, so the judges deduced three criteria to product defects in the judicial practice,namely expectation of consumers, risk utility, baker dichotomous criteria.Accumulation of product liability rules were summarized into classification, compiledinto the third torts restatement: product liability. The system operation wascharacterized by both fairness and efficiency.The product liability law system and related legal system had the interactiverelationship. First of all, the common law was independent and helped to thepromulgate the law; In the application of the law, enacted law should be in priorityand enacted law confirmed the common law; Secondly, the informal institution,alternative dispute resolution mechanism significantly solved the problem of“litigation explosion"; Product liability law system was helpful to reach a settlementout of court soon. Thirdly, the solution to the problem of the product liability takingplace in the interstate commerce depended on the "long arm law”,"Long arm law" prompted states product liability rule more generally; Fourthly, Contingent fee systemcould solve the problem of insufficient funds when the plaintiff filed a lawsuit. itpromoted the development of legal system of product liability; Finally, the productliability defense system promoted application of product liability system fairly andminimized the social costs.The above analysis shows that the product liability law system evolution is aprocess of rules adaptive restructuring. The development and change of productliability is associated with the people learning. The future the trend of the productliability law should be based on the feedback from the economic reality.