论文部分内容阅读
在一篇题为《〈侵权行为法重述(第三次):产品责任〉中有设计缺陷吗?》论文中,George Conk批评美国法律协会和新重述的报告人免除处方药制造者设计缺陷责任。本文是新重述的报告人对他和其他批评者的一个回应。本文第一部分概述Conk的论文,包括他对新重述的解释。第二部分指出Conk批评中的重大错误:他误读了重述,而且他对血液案例的依靠是错位的。第三部分解释新重述对处方药品设计的处理和它对产品设计缺陷的一般处理之间的实质性的差别并使之正当化。这些差别包括新重述拒绝允许法院去考虑尚未得到FDA许可的可替代的更安全的处方产品(在一般设计条款下,法院通常是考虑尚未上市的替代性设计的)和拒绝牺牲一类患者的福利去增进另一类患者的福利(在一般设计条款下,这种消费者之间的相互利益牺牲通常是得到宽容的。第三部分也解释为什么药品设计诉讼不能通过减少其复杂性而合法地被变得更有利于原告,以及为什么新重述的规定不会明显地降低制造者发现新的、更加安全的处方产品的积极性。
In a paper entitled “Is there a design flaw in the Restatement of Copyright Infringement Act (Third): Product Liability>?” In the paper, George Conk criticized the American Law Society and the newly recalled Whistleblower for the design flaws of prescription drug manufacturers responsibility. This article is a response from the new restatement reporter to him and other critics. The first part of this article outlines Conk’s essay, including his explanation of the new restatement. The second part points to a major error in Conk’s criticism: he misunderstood the restatement, and his reliance on the blood case was misplaced. The third section explains and justifies the substantive differences between the new restatement of the treatment of prescription drug design and its general handling of product design flaws. These differences include a new recitation that refuses to allow the court to consider alternative, safer, prescription products that have not yet been cleared by the FDA (under normal design terms, courts typically consider alternative designs that are not yet on the market) and refuse to sacrifice a class of patients Benefits To enhance the welfare of another group of patients (Mutual benefit sacrifices between such consumers are generally tolerated under the general design clauses.) Section III also explains why drug design litigation can not be legally done by reducing its complexity Being made more favorable to the plaintiff, and why the new restatement does not significantly reduce the enthusiasm of manufacturers to find new, safer prescription products.