Publication Date
2025
Abstract
The American judicial system has been grappling with the grisly realities of industrial carnage for over one hundred years. From Justice Cardozo’s storied expansion of manufacturer liability to the regulatory explosion of the 1960s, our nation has struggled to balance the personal freedom of consumers with the dangers of modern machinery. The winding morass of products liability law has afforded plaintiffs some degree of protection from the wily manufacturer, but most would agree that advancements in safety technology have prevented more consumer harm than any tort claim or cause of action.
Despite the unquestionable utility of safety advancements, analysis of our design defect doctrine suggests that our products liability framework might be disincentivizing our greatest weapon against preventing plaintiff harm: the adoption of safety technology. One example from the table saw industry suggests that the current framework incentivizes manufacturers both to resist safety adoption and to recruit resistance amongst its fellow manufacturers. By adopting a burden-shifting scheme in cases where such industry meddling has taken place, our design defect doctrine would be better equipped to incentivize safety adoption and dissuade industry meddling among powerful manufacturers.
Recommended Citation
Samples, Tanner P.
(2025)
"Protecting “Learned Hands”: Table Saw Injuries, the SawStop Saga, and How Our Design Defect Doctrine Is Disincentivizing Safety,"
Georgia Law Review: Vol. 59:
No.
2, Article 6.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol59/iss2/6