Journal of Business Ethics 17 (8):885-893 (1998)

Abstract
In this paper I examine the most common objection to strict product liability: that it is unfair to manufacturers. Critics have maintained that it is unfair because it allows manufacturers to be held liable even when they have not been negligent, and are not morally blameworthy or at fault. In response to this objection, I argue 1) that there are in fact cases in which it is at least somewhat unfair to manufacturers to impose compensation requirements upon them in accordance with the strict product liability doctrine, but 2) that there is also a class of cases in which it is fair to manufacturers to hold them responsible for compensating injured product users, as strict product liability requires, even though they have not been negligent and are not morally blameworthy or at fault. My analysis of the fairness issue provides a basis for some concluding remarks about the defensibility of the strict product liability doctrine.
Keywords Philosophy   Ethics   Business Education   Economic Growth   Management
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2004
DOI 10.1023/A:1005701111053
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,514
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Business Ethics.Alexei Marcoux - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Business Ethics.Jeffrey Moriarty - 2016 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
33 ( #297,925 of 2,348,202 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #510,741 of 2,348,202 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes