1 EXTENT AND MEANING OF PRODUCT LIABILITY
The expression "product liability" indicates the con-sequences connected by law to damages caused by use and/or handling and/or consumption of defective products. Products might be defective mainly be-cause of their design, because of an error or failure occurred in production cycle, or because of fault related to indications or warnings accompanying the products themselves, or even for non adequacy of post-sale surveillance activity.
The above consequences might be governed by penal law rather than civil law.
Generally speaking, penal law consequences regard the possibility to sentence to imprisonment and/or to a simple fine the physical person convicted. In case of corporations, even though many national systems of law do not entitle such legal entities to the commission of any crimes, nevertheless, incorporated persons may be held liable for payment of fines, whether jointly and severally with physical person liable and individually. In each case, entities or organization may be subject to various restraining injunctions, and even to attachment and/or forfeiture, and prohibition of continuing business and withdrawal of franchise and/or license, if any. The pertinent typology of crimes is represented mainly by manslaughter and physical injuries, but note that very often criminal or administrative sanctions related to simple fault and/or non compliance with safety statutory duties are provided. See particularly EC Directive no. 95/2001, and US Code, 21, passim. Note also that in many national systems (Italy included) prosecution and sentencing are mandatory and thus there might be no discretion on the part of public prosecutor and judge.
Consequences governed by civil law consist mainly in the recovery of damage allegedly suffered by plaintiff. Note that, accordingly to the rules of pro-cedure of various nations, damaged parties are enti-tled to sue the alleged liable for civil damage also within a criminal procedure.

2 GENERAL OUTLINES OF PRODUCT LIABILITY
Criminal liability generally follows the judicial assessment of each individual element of the crime charged and, in particular, of the non compliance with legally imposed duties. Note that Scottish judges have the sc. declaratory power which allows him holding criminal liability even in the absence of any previously construed-at-law or by statute figures of crime.
A civil suit brought by damaged party generally re-quires demonstration of damage, defectiveness of the product, and link of causation between the former and the latter. The pertinent burden of proof is established on plaintiff while defendant might be ex-empted from liability after having proved specific facts, on average expressly indicated by statute or common law.
Within Europe, EC Directives and the Agreements on the European Economic Area rule the liability for defective products also providing specific regulation for specific typologies of products. Single member states have had a limited but meaningful discretion in the implementation of the Directives. With regard to Switzerland, see the Federal Law 221.112.944 of 1993, June 18. Elsewhere, statutes and/or common law regulate product liability.

3 DAMAGES
Within European national systems, uniformed law allows recoveries according to the strict product liability theory solely for the typologies of damage expressly mentioned in the EC Directive no. 1985/374, i.e. damages consequent to death of / or personal injuries to human beings and those damages occurred to things actually destined to private use or consumption. Other damages, and particularly economic loss, are recoverable only by means of action based on national laws, trendily grounded on negligence. Similarly, within the major part of the U.S. legal systems, strict liability claim can not support the pleading of economic loss.
Note that the main problem in claims for damages lays in the proximity requirement, which may involves the denial of recoveries when and inasmuch damage is not immediately due to the defect of the product. Note also that proximity or immediateness requirement is truly disputed, and that it has been substantially over-ruled at least by several Civil Law civil judicial systems as well as by the Common Laws which recognize the sc. second collision doc-trine, and/or similar ones.
Simple bystanders allegedly damaged by a defective product are generally entitled to sue directly the manufacturer.

4 DEFECTS 
Manufacturing and surveillance defects are generally based on flaw or negligence, although res ipsa loquitur. Warning defects may involve absolute liability in case producer bears the sc. development risk. Differently, warning defects tend to be grounded on fault, when foreseeable risks of harm are not warned: res ipsa loquitur.
The most problematic issues generally arise from design defects.
Within European national systems, a product is defective in design when and inasmuch any feasible safety device is neglected in design and production of the product itself, as for the EC Directives 1985/374 (and 1992/59) and 2001/95. Safety duty run with good and it is absolute even after releasing. The only very remarkable difference among national legal systems of the EC/EU and EFTA (the almost entire Europe) may lay on the possibility for single member states of barring the state-of-(best) art defence, whether by express statement in the national laws enforcing EC Directives (as the Finnish Product Liability Act no. 1990/694), or by omitting to repeal other special laws or doctrines, if any, stating absolute liability (as some have said with regard to Luxemburg - but I think it is a simple vulgata).
Basically, the state-of-art defence grants producer"s exemption from liability in case of judicially assessed non feasibility, also after realising, of safety device the adoption of which could avoid the damage claimed. To the extent the said defence is not allowed, product liability arises to "absolute responsibility", although many courts and authors continue using the expression "strict liability". Anyway, the result remains unvaried, and it involves the sentence of the producer even though no negligent behaviour nor simple fault is charged.
Note at this regard that some EU member states issued absolute product liability rule in regard to specific kind of products: see the French Civil code, at art. 1386, a. 12, added by Act no. 1343 of 2004, December 9; § 84 of the German Arzneimittelgesetz (Act no. 33 of 2002, August 21); art. 6.3 of the Spanish Act no. 22 of 1994, July 6 (and no. 1 of the 2007, November 16). Compare also Danish Act no. 1120 of 1995, December 20 (amended).
Within US systems, different rules are provided by statutes and/or by single states common law. Restatements of the Law are quite vague because of their reference to concepts such as reasonableness. In each case, the Restatement third (1997/1998), is largely grounded on negligence of the producer because of his non adoption of alternative design, while the Restatement second (1964/1965) makes reference to the consumer expectation test, thus sup-porting the barring of risk development defence (see particularly § 402A, comment c).
By the way, broadly speaking, risk utility or consumer expectation tests, rather than the test based on the standards of the intended user or on the prudent manufacturer ones, offer a very wide range of rules and, because of that, it is really hard to refer briefly to the principles governing the subject matter within US legal systems. Only the analysis of the single states common law and statutes may permit the actual laws to be squarely discovered. Note that, in some states, risk development defence may be generally not allowed by law, as for example in Hawaii (Johnson v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 1987); Wisconsin (Sumnicht v. Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., 1984, or Green. v. Smith & Nephew AHP, Inc., 2000); or even on the base of a particularly strict use of the risk utility test, as held e. g. in Asbestos case (e. g.) in Beshada v. Johns et al. (New Jersey, 1982), prior to the new national statute on product liability (1990).
Note also that, with regard to the Law of Pennsylvania, where risk development defence in strict product liability claims is not allowed, probably since Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Division etc. (1987), it has been recently certified the issue of "Whether … (the) Court should apply § 2 of the Restatement Third of Torts in place of § 402A of the Restatement Second of Torts": Bugosh v. I. U. North America, Inc., for which see J. P. Anders and J. W. Scott Jr., in "Pennsylvania Supreme Court to consider adopting Restatement Third of Torts" (Philadelphia, 2008). Furthermore, it has been recently posed also the problem of the extent of the intended user test, by the US Court of Appeal for the 3.d Circuit, in Berrier et al. v. Simplicity Manufacturing, Inc., et al., certifying the pertinent question so removed to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania.
For the absoluteness of product liability in the States of Canada, see D. T. Neave and K. J. Manning, in "The International Comparative Legal Guide to Product Liability", 2007, XV, at 3.2.
It is also worth noting that, however, many statutes and state"s common law of US provide the state-of-art as an affirmative defence. Differences may lay on the extent of said defence, being timing considered "the time the product left the control of the manufacturer" (as for New Jersey S.A., 2A 58 C-3, a 1) or, similarly, "the time the specific product involved in the action was first sold to any person not engaged in the business of selling" (as for Nebraska R. S., 25-21 182; but see also Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Sec. 82.005) or even the time of production (as for Arizona R. S., 12-681, 6.8). From a different perspective, state-of-the-art concept may be identified with the "reasonably available scientific and technological knowledge" (as for the Louisiana Product Liability Act, in Rev. Statutes III, 9-28000-59). The simple adoption of "the generally recognized and prevailing standards" might arise only to a simple or rebuttable presumption of non defectiveness (as for the Kentucky Rev. Statutes, sec. 411-310, as well as, similarly, for the Indiana Code, 34-20-5-1), if not to an immaterial issue (a fortiori from McLaughin v. Sikorsky Aircraft, California, 1983), truly hard to be admitted within a strict liability claim.
In the Restatement (Third) of the Law, Product Liability, reference is made to the "cutting edge technology" (2 d – 68).
It is worth mentioning the possible exclusion of liability in case the buyer elects not to purchase the optional safety device the lack of which brought to the damage, as held lastly in Scarangella et al. v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc., et al. (New York, 1999), quoting other N. Y. precedents.
One may assume that the (just) above issue will bring about some very drawbacks in the possible judgements thereof, especially within European legal systems, where risk-utility test is trendily not adoptable (only as extrema ratio), and cost-benefit analysis of the user or consumer seems to be not consistent with Law.
Duty to recall goods released after having discovered defect, generally imposed in EU and EFTA by EC Directive no. 2001/95, may also be imposed elsewhere by statutes, at law, and in each case on the negligence theory. N. B. that failing to recall defectives products might per se constitute a criminal offence, or a breach of administrative statutory duty.
Whether in Europe and in US, the trend has been emerging to state the exemption of the producer from liability in case of product conformity with the specific rules, whether mandatory or not, if any, issued by administrative Authority, by statutes, or simply recalled by the formers. This trend is not confined to the field of product liability.
But note the sc. regulatory compliance can never mean absolute exemption from liability for damages because it is always save the general clause of prohibition of fraud, as recently held in Warner-Lambert Co., llc, et al., v. Kimberly Kent et al. (Michigan, 2008), and, particularly, that of the prohibition of any misfeasance, as may happen in case the producer is more acknowledged than the administrative ruler. In this latter case, at least in EU (and EFTA) countries, it should be further held a breach of the precise duty to collaborate with public authority (as provided in EC Directive no. 2001/95). It is also worth quoting the case Ryan v. Victoria (City), 1999, in which the Supreme Court of Canada held that the "mere compliance with a statute does not, in and of itself, preclude a finding of civil liability". See also McLaughin v. Sikorsky Aircraft, quoted above; C. Mc Kenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co., App. Cal., 5th, sept. 2008, 25, F052606 (Super. Ct. No. 343927); and Italian Corte di Cassazione, criminal chamber no. IV, no. 33285/2008; and Id., 10190/2007; but see also Id., un. civ. chamb., no. 104/1970. See lastly, Debora Fellner et al. v. Tri-Union Seafood et al., US Court of App., 3rd Circ., feb. 12 2008, doc. no. 07-1238 

5 CAUSATION 
Link of causation may represent the central ground of the civil litigation as well as, in particular, of the criminal procedure. Firstly because the analysis of the mechanism of causation is still truly disputed, even from a naturalistic point of view: just suffice to recall John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic" etc. [1843], and the question of the sc. recursus ad infinitum, also called the question "of the mother", for the possibility of being the mother the cause of the birth, for example, of the murderer and so the cause of murder (simple "but-for" test). Secondly, and particularly, because quite frequent are the cases in which scientific knowledge does not allow to assess, beyond any reasonable doubt, the certainty of the causation of the damage as regards the alleged causal – determinative factor consisting for example in the defect of a product. Note that this is the main reason which gave raise to the special rules governing the liability according to the doctrine of probability in causation, broadly applied in cases of pharmaceutical or agricultural products and environmental pollution.
Note also that Italian (and German) scholars of civil liability, in particular, have clarified the distinction existing among the event of damage properly said, on the one hand, and damage recoverable because of the alleged sufferance thereof, on the other hand: only the former should be ruled by the naturalistic and/or probabilistic science of causation, while the latter should be governed solely by the principles of pure law (but that is diputed or disputable).
Notably, (judge-made) rules of civil procedure may allow the judge to put the burden of (negative) proof of causation on to defendant just for the simple likelihood of causation alleged by plaintiff. In each case, analyzing judgements holding product liability it is inferable that the causal requirement is reduced to a simple interference of the alleged defect with damage, sufficing a "causal efficiency" or "adequacy" of the former in the production of the latter.
It might be required the predictability of the damage before allocating it to the producer, especially in Common Law systems.

6 CIVIL PROCEDURE
Jurisdiction in cross-border claims represents another problematic issue because the sc. Conflict of Laws may render unpredictable the actual existence of the powers of the national jurisdiction hypothetically resorted to. However, ECJ judgements and the EC Directives no. 2001/44 and 2007/864 constitute a precious guide for civil litigation within Europe. Note that, with regard to Switzerland, Bruxelles Convention signed from the original Parties in 1968, September 27, and that of Lugano, of 1988, September 16, is applicable (see now the Lugano II Conv.).
See also art. 227, of the EC Treaty (and Annex II), now art. 299 of the EU Treaty.
Note also that among some European countries the Hague Convention of 1972, October 2 (on the law applicable just on product liability) is still applicable.
Generally speaking, in determining which criteria are basically followed, often in a hierarchical order, reference is to be made firstly to the place or places in which the damage and its effects have been produced, then to the place of domicile of the damaged party, the place of domicile of the producer or the place of releasing.
In the US, jurisdiction of a state court is limited by the extent of its power and by the coordinate authority of sister States. Thus, assessment of affiliating circumstances is required. See Hanson v. Denckla, Mr. Chief J. Warren, dissenting in part.
In personam jurisdiction in commercial matter is traditionally based on the circumstance that the defendant has done business within the forum state, as held (e. g.) in Gray v. American Radiator & Stan-dard Sanitary Corp.; and also Keeton v. Hustler Magazine; and Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom-bia, S.A. v. Hall (etc. etc.).
Recently, in personam jurisdiction rules have been further evolved at common law. Modern requirements might consist in the sc. minimum contact of the claim with the forum State, as for (e. g.) Erlanger Mills v. Cohoes Fibre Mills, Inc.; International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington; Travellers Health Association v. Com. of Virginia (etc.). As especially regards product liability, a sort of predictability test of the circumstance that the "product will find its way into the forum State" seems to be now exacted, as held in World-Wide Volkwagen Corp. v. Woodson; but see also Kulko v. California Superior Court; and Shaffer v. Heitner. Never-the-less, the issue remains problematic because rules are still provided by the single states law (and they may differ from one another). In-fact, several States issued particular statutes related to this subject matter, called "long arm" statutes, and the only uniform demand lays in the needed consistence with the Fourteenth Amendment of American Constitution which posed the Due Process of Law clause. See Pennoyer v. Neff. As regards law of statutes, see for example, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, III, § 302; O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 (Georgia Code); and Texas Rev. Civ. S. A., art. 2031b. See also the California Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 410.10 and ff.
In each case, lack of jurisdiction assessed on the ground of the rules of civil procedure may possibly be overruled, and so the jurisdiction may be affirmed, by means of the recourse to the Agency theory, on the basis of which the premises of the seller could be regarded as in the direct availability to the producer; and (by means of the recourse) to the s. c. Piercing the Veil theory. If applicable.
Further caveat derives from the federal jurisdiction rule referred to inter-state (of US) commerce.
The service of the process in cross border claims as well as the full faith and credit recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements is usually ruled by International Treaties and EC/EU Regulations. Note that consistency with the public policy of the State of recognition of the foreign judgement is generally required.
Within Europe, as hinted above, the integration of the member states of EU has permitted the creation of the sc. "Judiciary Unique Space" even though the public policy consistency requirement has been none-the-less saved. EC Regulation no. 2007/1393 provides specific procedures for serving of process and other notification activities. See also, particularly, the Hague Treaty of 1965, November 15th.
As regards proof-taking abroad, see the basics Hague Treaty of 1970, March 18, and the EC Regulation no. 2001/1206 (not applicable to Denmark). Note that the requested authority use to refuse to apply the rules of procedure of the foreign requiring, otherwise applicable on request, in case of non consistency with the intra moenia mandatory proof-taking rules of procedure- so arising to pubblic policy bulwark. 

                                                                                                                riccor, 2008



7 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jerrold P. Anders and James W. Scott Jr., Pennsylvania Supreme Court to consider adopting Restatement Third of Torts", Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), 2008;

Bertsche – Pikard – Riccò, Product liability and risk management methods, in Risk, Reliability and Social Safety, edited by AVEN and VINNEM, London, 2007, II, 2030.

D. T. Neave and K. J. Manning, The International Comparative Legal Guide to Product Liability", 2007, XV (Canada);

Jerrold P. Anders and James W. Scott Jr., Third Circuit clarifies Azzarello and the admissibility of risk-utility evidence, in Counterpoint (Pennsylvania Defense Institute), 2007 (July);

Vincenzo Scalisi, Danno alla Persona e Ingiustizia, in Rivista di Diritto Civile, 2007, I;

Charles Lifland – Matt Powers, "But For" Causation etc., Los Angeles (California), 2007;

Gabriele Capecchi, La Responsabilità amministrativa degli enti per gli illeciti amministrativi dipendenti da reato: note di inquadramento sistematico e problematiche operative, in Diritto del Commercio Internazionale, 2006;

Achille Cutrera – Giuseppe Pastorelli – Barbara Pozzo (edited by), Seveso trent"anni dopo. La Gestione del Rischio Industriale, Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore, 2006;

Duncan Fairgrieve (edited by), Product Liability in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge University Press, 2005;

Guido Alpa, note to App. Roma, 7 III 2005, in Nuova Giurisprudenza Civile Commentata, 2005, II, 330 ss.;

Carlo Piergallini, Danno da Prodotto e Responsabilità Penale etc., Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore, 2004;

Reuter, A.: Product liability and risk management, call-backs from the view of a supplier (in German). Risk.tech 2004, Mu-nich, 2004.

Wolfang Straub, La Responsabilité du Fait des Produits en Pratique. Droit Communautaire et Suisse, Berne (Switzerland), 2003;

Federico Stella, Giustizia e Modernità etc., Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore, 2003;

Basil S. Markesinis – Hannes Uberath, The German Law of Tort. A Comparative Treatise, Hart Publishing, 2002;

Fabio Toriello, Responsabilita' civile e normativa comunitaria. La responsabilita' del produttore, in Il Diritto Privato dell'U-nione Europea (in Trattato di Diritto Privato Diretto da Mario Bessone), Giappichelli Editore, 2002;

Law Commission (New Zealand), Liability for Loss Resulting From the Development. Supply or Use of Genetically Modified Organisms, Wellington (New Zealand), 2002;

Hélvio Simões Vidal, Causalidade. Ciência e Experiência em Matéria Penal, Revista dos Tribunais (Brazil), 2001;

Alberto Cadoppi, Materiali per un"Introduzione allo Studio del Diritto Penale Comparato, Casa Editrice Dott. Antonio Milani (Cedam), 2001;

Maidolis Labañino Barrera, La responsabilidad civil del productor de bienes y servicios Vs. protección del consumidor, San Miguel (Spain), 2001;

William A. Dreier - M. Karen Thompson, Design Defects in New Jersey following the 1997 Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product Liability, in New Jersey Law Journal, (December 4) 2000;

James A. Henderson Jr. - Aaron D. Twerski, Intuition and Technology in Product Design Litigation. An Essay on Proximate Causation, in Georgetown Law Journal, 2000 (April);

Walter van Gerven – Jeremy Lever – Pierre Larouche, Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supernational and International Tort Law, Hart Publishing, 2000;

B. A. Hepple – Janet O"Sallivan – M. H. Matthews – David A. Howarth, Tort. Cases & Materials, LexisNexis, 2000;

Guido Alpa – Massimo Bessone (edited by Fabio Toriello), La Responsabilità del Produttore, Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore, 1999;

William A. Dreier - Haekyoung Suh, Post-Sale Duties to Warn, in the New Jersey Lawyer (June 21, 1999);

Paul W. Whelan, Enhanced Injuries and the Restatement of Torts Third, Seattle, 1999;

Paolo Cendon, Circostanze Incerte e Responsabilità Civile, in Rivista trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile, 1999;

Giovanna Visintini, Trattato breve della Responsabilità Civile. Fatti Illeciti. Inadempimento. Danno Risarcibile, Casa Editrice Dott. Antonio Milani (Cedam), 1999;

Robert C. Casad, Il Concetto di Jurisdiction in Materia Civile alla fine del Ventesimo Secolo. Forum Conveniens e Forum non Conveniens, in Rivista di Diritto Processuale, 1999;

Pier Giuseppe Monateri, La Responsabilità Civile, in Trattato di Diritto Civile diretto da Rodolfo Sacco, Unione Tipografico Editrice Torinese (Utet), 1998;

John G. Fleming, The Law of Torts, Lbc Information Services, 1998;

W. V. H. Rogers, Winfield & Jolovicz. On Tort, Sweet & Maxwell, 1998 (but more recent edition published);

Konrad Zweigert (1911-1996) – Hein Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998;

Paolo Piras, Nesso di Causalità e Imputazione a Titolo di Colpa, in Diritto Penale e Processo, 1998;

Giovanna Visintini, Principi e Clausole Generali con particolare riguardo alla Responsabilità Civile, in Scritti in Onore di Pietro Rescigno, Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore, 1998;

Aldo Chiancone – Donatella Porrini, Lezioni di Analisi Economica del Diritto, Giappichelli Editore, 1998;

Dominick Vetri, Sviluppi delle Regole e dei Principi sulla Responsabilità del Produttore negli Stati Uniti, in Rivista trime-strale di Diritto e Procedura Civile, 1997;

Claudio Pizzi, Pluralità di Cause e Formula della Condicio, in Diritto Penale e Processo, 1997;

Wörner, C. M.: product liability and FMEA (in German) Frankfurt, 1997.

Massimo Condinanzi, L"Attuazione della Direttiva sulla Sicu-rezza Generale dei Prodotti, in Contratto e Impresa (Europa), 1996;

Manuela Calvo Antón, La Responsabilidad del Fabbricante por Daños Causados por Productos Defectuosos en la Actualidad, in Cuadernos de Estudios Empresariales (Spain), 1994;

Alessandro Simoni, La recente Legge Svedese sulla Responsabilità da Prodotto etc., in Rivista di Diritto Civile, 1994 (I);

Christian T. Campbell – Dennis Campbell (edited by), International Product Liability, Lloyd"s of London Press, 1993;

Umberto Salvestroni, Codice Civile e Responsabilità del Produttore, in Rivista del Diritto Commerciale, 1993 (I), and in I Cinquant"anni del Codice Civile (II), Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore, 1993;

Andrew Geddes, Product and Service Liability in the EEC. The New Strict Liability Regime, Sweet & Maxwell, 1992;

Carlo E. Paliero, La Causalità dell"Omissione etc., in Medicina Legale, 1992;

Giorgio Marinucci, Non c"è Dolo senza Colpa. Morte dell"Imputazione Oggettiva dell"Evento e Trasfigurazione nella Colpevolezza? In Rivista Italiana di Diritto e Procedura Penale, 1991;

Alberto Saravalle, La Responsabilità del Produttore nel Diritto Internazionale Privato, Casa Editrice Dott. Antonio Milani (Cedam), 1991;


Salvatore Patti, Ripartizione dell"Onere. Probabilità e Verosi-miglianza nella Prova del Danno da Prodotto, in Rivista di Diritto Civile, 1990 (I);

Aa. Vv., La responsabilità del produttore, edited by Alpa – Bin – Cendon, Padova, 1989;

George L. Priest, La Controrivoluzione nel Diritto della Re-sponsabilità da Prodotti negli Stati Uniti d"America (Italian Transalation by Giulio Ponzanelli), in Foro Italiano, 1989 (IV);

Giulio Ponzanelli, Il Caso Brown e il Diritto Italiano della Re-sponsabilità Civile del Produttore, ibidem;

Fabrizio Cosentino, Responsabilità da Prodotto Difettoso. Ap-punti di Analisi Economica del Diritto, ibidem;

Adolfo Di Majo G., La Responsabilità per Prodotti Difettosi nella Direttiva Comunitaria, in Rivista di Diritto Civile, 1989 (I);

Michael Whincup, La Legge di Riforma in Materia di Respon-sabilità del Produttore nell"Ordinamento Inglese, ibidem;

Roberto Pardolesi – Giulio Ponzanelli (edited by), La Respon-sabilità per Danno da Prodotti Difettosi, in Le Nuove Leggi Civili Commentate, 1989;


Fabrizio Cafaggi, Danno da Prodotto e Funzioni della Respon-sabilità del Produttore, ibidem;

Federico Stella, La Nozione Penalmente Rilevante di Causa. La Condizione Necessaria, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto e Procedu-ra Penale, 1988;

Giorgio Cian, Corte Costituzionale e Responsabilità Civile etc., in Foro Italiano, 1988 (I);

Edward I. Niles, Federal Civil Procedure, Parker-Griffin Pub Co., 1986 (but more recent edition published);

H. L. Hart – Antony M. Honoré, Causation in the Law, Claren-don Press, 1985;

Pietro Trimarchi, La Responsabilità del Fabbricante nel Proget-to di Statuto dell"Impresa, in Quadrimestre (Rivista di Diritto privato), 1985;

Spior Simitis, La Responsabilità per i Prodotti Difettosi. L"Approccio Tedesco-Occidentale, in Rivista Critica del Diritto Privato, 1985;

E. Allan Farnsworth, Your Loss or My Gain? The Dilemma of the Disgorgement Principle in Breach of Contract, in The Yale Law Journal, 1985;

William Lloyd Prosser – W. Page Keeton – Dan B. Dobbs – Robert E. Keeton – David G. Owen (edited by), Prosser and Keeton. On Torts, West Group, 1984 (but more recent edition published);

John S. Allee – Theodore V. H. Mayer – Robb W. Patrick, Product Liability, Law Journal Press, 1984;

Massimo Franzoni, Prevenzione e Risarcimento del Danno da Prodotti Industriali, in Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile, 1982;

George L. Priest, The Best Evidence of the Effect of Product Liability Law on the Accident – Rate: Reply, in The Yale Law Journal, 1982;

Emilio Dolcini, L"Imputazione dell"Evento Aggravante. Contributo in Diritto Comparato, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto e Procedura Penale, 1979;

Antonio Jannarelli, Il Risarcimento del Danno alla Persona e Analisi Economica del Diritto, in Foro Italiano, 1979 (V);

Barry B. Schweig, Products Liability Problem, in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 443, Risks and Its Treatment: Changing Societal Consequences, 1979;

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Liability for damage cause by products intended for or involved in international trade, A/CN.9/133, 1977;

Gustavo Ghidini, Tendenze della Responsabilità Civile e Inte-ressi Imprenditoriali, in Rivista trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile, 1976;

Mario Bessone, Tutela dell"Ambiente. Ruolo della Giurisprudenza e Direttive di Common Law, ibidem;

Guido Calabresi, Optimal Deterrence and Accidents, to Fleming James, Jr., il miglior fabbro, in The Yale Law Journal, 1975;

Edward Veicht – David Miers, Assoult on the Law of Tort, in the Modern Law Review, 1975;

Michael Whincup, Reasonable fitness of cars, ibidem;

Guido Alpa, Circolazione dei Prodotti e Responsabilità del Fabbricante in Diritto Nord-Amercano, in Rivista del Diritto Commerciale, 1971 (I);

Mario Bessone, Prodotti Dannosi e Responsabilità dell"Impresa, in Rivista trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile, 1971;

Jean-Francis Overstake, La Responsabilité du Fabricant de Produits Dangereux , in Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil, 1970;

Vincenzo Vigoriti, Note comparative in tema di Jurisdiction negli Stati Uniti d"America, in Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile, 1969;

Paolo Forchielli, Causalità e Prevedibilità, ivi (II);

Angelo Grisoli, Contributo alla Ricerca dei Principii Generali comuni ai Diritti degli Stati della Comunità Europea in Materia di Responsabilità Extracontrattuale etc., in Studi nelle Scienze Sociali e Giuridiche (n. 140), Pubblicazioni dell"Università di Pavia, 1963;

John Charlesworth - R. A. Percy, On Negligence, Sweet & Maxwell, 1962 (but more recent edition published);

Guido Calabresi, Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts, in The Yale Law Journal, 1961;

Rodolfo Sacco, L"Ingiustizia di cui all"art. 2043, in Foro Padano, 1960 (I);

Harold A. Katz, Liability of Automobile Manufacturers for Unsafe Design of Passenger Cars, in the Harvard Law Review, 1956;

John H. Uhl, Federal Courts. Substance and Procedure. Effect of Railroad v. Tompkins and Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure upon Burden of Proof of Contributory Negligence, in the Michigan Law Review, 1938/39;

Edmund M. Morgan, Instructing the Jury upon Presumptions and Burden of Proof, in the Harvard Law Review, 1933/34;

René Demogue, Fault, Risk, and Apportionment of Loss in Responsibility, in The Illinois Law Review, 1918-1919;