Comments on the Reporters' Study of Enterprise Responsibility for Personal Injury

This Article critiques the substantive law and damage proposals of the Reporters' Study on Enterprise Liability, which was published in 1991 by the American Law Institute. Contrary to the Reporters' recommendations, the author proposes retaining the consumer expectations test and strict liability for product suppliers. He argues that it is not practical to shift medical malpractice liability, as proposed by the Study, from doctors to hospitals. In the area of damages, the author proposes retaining the rules of recovery for pain and suffering, punitive damages, and the collateral source rules essentially as they are now, instead of adopting the changes recommended by the Study.

The author believes that the tort system and trial by jury as they are presently constituted work well, and are not in need of the sort of drastic overhaul recommended by the Study.