George W. Conk, Is There a Design Defect in the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability?, 109 YALE L.J. 1087, 1102 (2000). Beginning first full paragraph, sentence reading, "Thus, if the medical product does more harm than good for at least one class of users, it will not be considered defective," should read, "Thus, if the medical product does more good than harm for at least one class of users, it will not be considered defective."
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||correction to "Cross-dressing in the master's clothes", Yale Law Journal, vol. 109, p. 745 and to "Is there a design defect in the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability?", vol. 109, p. 1102|
|Publication:||Yale Law Journal|
|Article Type:||Correction Notice|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2000|
|Previous Article:||Of TEAs and takings: compensation guarantees for confiscated tradeable environmental allowances.|
|Next Article:||Optimal standardization in the law of property: The numerus clausus principle.|