For years, products liability law has failed to provide a remedy for consumers who suffer financial injury as a result of purchasing defective products manufacturers place and keep in the marketplace. The economic loss rule and defect manifestation requirements have, to date, foreclosed products liability claims when consumers suffer only economic injury and severely hampered recovery through other claims. Prior discussion of consumer economic loss litigation has been critical and embraced the necessity of the injury-based economic loss rule and defect manifestation requirements to protect manufacturers from perceived endless liability. While a few scholars have addressed some of the deficiencies behind the economic loss rule, this article builds on those discussions, addressing for the first time the flawed rationales behind defect manifestation requirements, and deconstructs in detail the outdated and flawed assumptions or fallacies upon which the rationales behind both doctrines are based. After deconstructing and exposing the, at best, questionable assumptions behind the economic loss rule and defect manifestation requirements, the article advocates a novel expansion of products liability law that provides a remedy for consumer economic loss caused by dangerously defective products. This proposed framework provides the proper demarcation between contract and tort, is consistent with earlier justifications eliminating privity and negligence, better aligns consumer safety with manufacturers' economic interests, bridges the current liability gap, and streamlines existing litigation.

中文翻译：

---

解构产品责任法谬误为经济损失提供救济

多年来，产品责任法未能为因购买制造商放置并留在市场上的缺陷产品而遭受经济损失的消费者提供补救措施。迄今为止，经济损失规则和缺陷表现要求规定，当消费者仅遭受经济损失并严重阻碍通过其他索赔进行追偿时，止赎产品责任索赔。之前对消费者经济损失诉讼的讨论一直很关键，并接受了基于伤害的经济损失规则和缺陷表现要求的必要性，以保护制造商免受感知到的无限责任。虽然一些学者已经解决了经济损失规则背后的一些缺陷，但本文建立在这些讨论的基础上，首次解决了缺陷表现要求背后有缺陷的基本原理，并详细解构了这两个学说背后的基本原理所依据的过时和有缺陷的假设或谬误。在解构和揭露经济损失规则和缺陷表现要求背后充其量有问题的假设后，本文主张对产品责任法进行新的扩展，为危险缺陷产品造成的消费者经济损失提供补救措施。这个提议的框架提供了合同和侵权行为之间的适当界限，与消除隐私和疏忽的早期理由一致，更好地将消费者安全与制造商的经济利益结合起来，弥合当前的责任差距，并简化了现有的诉讼。并详细解构了过时和有缺陷的假设或谬误，这两种学说背后的基本原理都基于这些假设或谬误。在解构和揭露经济损失规则和缺陷表现要求背后充其量有问题的假设后，本文主张对产品责任法进行新的扩展，为危险缺陷产品造成的消费者经济损失提供补救措施。这个提议的框架提供了合同和侵权行为之间的适当界限，与消除隐私和疏忽的早期理由一致，更好地将消费者安全与制造商的经济利益结合起来，弥合当前的责任差距，并简化了现有的诉讼。并详细解构了过时和有缺陷的假设或谬误，这两种学说背后的基本原理都基于这些假设或谬误。在解构和揭露经济损失规则和缺陷表现要求背后充其量有问题的假设后，本文主张对产品责任法进行新的扩展，为危险缺陷产品造成的消费者经济损失提供补救措施。这个提议的框架提供了合同和侵权行为之间的适当界限，与消除隐私和疏忽的早期理由一致，更好地将消费者安全与制造商的经济利益结合起来，弥合当前的责任差距，并简化了现有的诉讼。