No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Forensic Pathologist's Role in Product-Related Deaths
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2021
Extract
Product liability litigation may proceed under several theories when someone has suffered harm caused by a product furnished by a commercial supplier. Liability for injuries or death caused by defective products can be based on the negligence of the manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of a product; on breach of warranty; on misrepresentations made by the seller regarding the nature or quality of the product; and on a theory of strict liability. In all cases, however, the plaintiff must prove that the negligence of the supplier of the product or the defective or unreasonably dangerous product itself caused the injury. Very often the testimony of an expert witness on the issues of defect and causation may be required to establish a prima facie case.
- Type
- Forensic Medicine
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1983 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics
References
Annot., 66 A.L.R.2d 1082, 1088.Google Scholar
Introduction to Forensic Sciences (Eckert, , ed.) (C.V. Mosby, St. Louis, Mo.) (1980) at 67.Google Scholar
Wecht, C.H., The Use of Forensic Pathology in Defending Criminal Cases, reprinted from Criminal Defense Techniques (Cites, R.M. Bernstein, S., eds.) (Matthew Bender Co., New York) (1973) at 8.Google Scholar
Gradwohl's Legal Medicine (Camps, , ed.) (John Wright & Sons, Chicago) (3rd ed. 1976) at 70.Google Scholar
Fatteh, A., Handbook of Forensic Pathology (J.P. Lippincott, Philadelphia) (1973) at 11 [hereinafter referred to as Fatteh].Google Scholar
Wecht, , supra note 5, at 12.Google Scholar
Zimmerly, J.G., Clinical Forensic Medicine, in Forensic Sciences (Matthew Bender Co., New York) (1981).Google Scholar
For example, a single issue of MECAP News, a newsletter from a medical examiners’ alert project collecting timely information on consumer product-related deaths, recently reported burn deaths involving consumer products in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Kalamazoo, Michigan, and Kane County, Illinois. MECAP News 6(4): 3 (April 1981).Google Scholar
Fatteh, , supra note 7, at 172–73.Google Scholar
Id. at 170, 284.Google Scholar
Sizemore, F.J. III, The Chemical Conspiracy: New Perspectives in Products Liability, Trial 12(11): 28 (November 1976).Google Scholar
Wecht, , supra note 5, at 107.Google Scholar
Annot., 79 A.L.R.2d 301, 315.Google Scholar
Pavalon, , Practical Considerations in the Products Case, Trial 16 (11): 68, 70 (November 1980).Google Scholar
Pichler, H.R. et al, Product Liability and the Technical Expert, Science 186: 1089 (December 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. at §13. See also City of Pueblo v. Ralliffe, 327 P.2d 270, 274 (Colo. 1958); Allen Morris Co. v. McNalley, 305 So.2d 79, 80 (Fla. Dist Ct. App. 1974).Google Scholar
Pavalon, , supra note 17.Google Scholar
Fatteh, , supra note 7, at 179.Google Scholar
Zimmerly, , supra note 9.Google Scholar
Morris, C., Defective Devices—Who's Liable? Hospital Medical Staff 8:2 (May 1979).Google ScholarPubMed
Id. See also Annot., 79 A.L.R.2d 401.Google Scholar
Morris, , supra note 26, at 3. See also Annot., 79 A.L.R.2d 401, §11d (later case service).Google Scholar
Annot., 79 A.L.R.2d 301, §3c (later case service); Condon, W.J., Product Liability—1979, Food Drug Cosmetic Law Journal 35 (7): 404, 405 (1980).Google Scholar
592 P.2d 1383 (Mont. 1979).Google Scholar