間斷的平衡——為什麼402A條款繁榮了而第三次重述越來越衰弱

Punctuated Equilibrium: Why §402A Flourished and the Third Restatement Languished

美國法學會在402A條款中的巨大成功是它給予對製造商採取行動保護消費者免受產品相關危害的責任時發揮的巨大驅動作用。傳統的過錯分析是一個更堅實的基礎。第三次重述採取了過錯分析方法，將嚴格責任留給了製造缺陷的案件，卻放棄了設計缺陷。在這種情況下，它成功地重述、澄清甚至是發展了法律。但是在第三次重述中，缺少對製造商向接觸其產品的人所承擔的積極義務。這一失敗可以解釋法院為何對第三次重述的接納如此緩慢。

The ALI’s great success in section 402A was the expansive impulse it gave its recognition of a manufacturer’s duty to act to protect consumers from product-related harms where feasible. Conventional negligence analysis was a firmer foundation. The Third Restatement adopted that approach, leaving strict liability to the case of manufacturing defects, abjuring it for design. To that extent, it successfully restated, clarified, and even improved the law. But absent from the Third Restatement was a robust statement of the affirmative duties owed by manufacturers to those who will encounter their products. That failure may explain courts’ slow and partial embrace of the Third Restatement even though its centerpiece.