The Knowledge Remedy

44 Pages Posted: 9 Jul 2020

Date Written: June 15, 2020

Abstract

This Article explains how common law judges can respond to situations in which a public good that is a necessary predicate for determining liability does not exist. To bring a products liability or environmental harm case, plaintiffs must prove that the product or chemical has a propensity to injure people and that it injured them. But studies demonstrating these facts are too costly for plaintiffs to fund. In many mass tort cases, it is in the defendant’s interest not to conduct studies of the risks associated with chemicals or medical devices and, even when conducting such studies, it is in the defendant’s interest to limit or manipulate research to avoid findings that their products pose a danger to consumers. Government would be the natural producer of such studies, but it does not fund or conduct enough of them. As a result, even if a plaintiff was injured by a toxin or product, where the defendant chose to hide its head in the sand rather than test, she cannot prove this was the case. She may lose even where there is evidence the defendant engaged in misconduct to prevent or hide research into its products. This Article proposes a second-best solution to this problem: a knowledge remedy which requires a defendant found to have engaged in misconduct to fund independent studies into what risks its products impose.

Keywords: torts, remedies, information, toxic torts, environmental law, drug and device law

JEL Classification: k13

Suggested Citation

Lahav, Alexandra D., The Knowledge Remedy (June 15, 2020). 98 Texas Law Review 1361 (2020) , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3627868

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
82
Abstract Views
884
Rank
543,153
PlumX Metrics