Tort and regulatory risks

Civil wrongs arising from non-contractual obligations are typically what the Tort Law addresses. A person who suffers injury may use the tort law to oblige the person or organization responsible for his injury to pay for the damages the injury brought about.

Tort and regulatory risks

Administrative systems are driven mainly by government agencies that police the market through standard setting and enforcement. Tort liability is privately driven and occurs after injuries arise from product use and failure.

Its impact is primarily felt through the monetary judgments that courts impose on industry actors deemed liable under the law. With respect to these three considerations, this review maintains the following: Tort liability historically preceded and then played an overlapping role with modern administrative systems.

Each country of interest to the committee faces different challenges in its own product liability system and civil justice institutions, as well as in its regulatory agencies. This review provides a general historical and conceptual introduction, primarily from the perspective of the U.

Because legal systems are rooted in particular historical and cultural contexts, the determination of the appropriate scope of tort and administrative responsibility with respect to food and medical products in a specific country depends on a detailed examination of the social context there.

The key variables identified in this discussion may serve as a starting point for such a detailed examination. It also provided for civil liability, which could be pursued through private legal action in some instances.

Tort and regulatory risks

Early English history also reflected public and private enforcement of food standards. Under old English law, the Crown established basic quality systems such as uniform weights and measures, bread and grain standards, and officials to ensure compliance.

At the same time, the common law permitted a buyer to sue a seller of substandard food for damages. In the United States, the rise of the modern regulatory agency in the first half of the 20th century also coincided with expansion of the scope of product liability.

Tort and regulatory risks

Food and Drug Administration itself grew from its niche in the Bureau of Chemistry within the Department of Agriculture into the Food and Drug Administration and took on broader regulatory powers. However, by mid-century, those barriers had severely eroded. Lawyers for industry told their clients: Foremost among these was the concept of strict liability.

Under strict liability, the plaintiff need only show that the product was defective and caused the injury, he or she need not prove that the manufacturer was at fault or had breached a duty owed to the plaintiff.

Over the course of the s and s, both judges and scholars emphasized that such rules would result in safer products because manufacturers would be incentivized to take greater precautions to reduce their tort liability costs.

More recently, cases against medical products producers are largely brought on grounds of inadequate warning and defective design, and questions increasingly grew over whether such suits improved safety or thwarted the development of beneficial products.

In the next section, this review considers these objectives and the factors that influence the effectiveness of the product liability system.

An administrative regulatory system for food, drugs, and medical devices is primarily designed to oversee safety and effectiveness of the products in the marketplace. It accomplishes this by setting standards that industry must meet, and by enforcing those standards throughout the design, production, and marketing process using a variety of tools, including registration, pre-marketing approval, guidance, recall, detention, and seizure.

Regulators and other law enforcement officials also have access to more coercive tools such as civil and criminal penalties. The modern tort liability system has a hybrid purpose, particularly in the United States. Settlements may have similar effects. The fear of such potential damages, the media and public scrutiny they bring, can foster greater care and discipline on the part of producers.

This, in turn, may have other intended or unintended consequences, such as price increases that could be passed on to consumers. This section proceeds in three parts. Third, it discusses ways in which other significant product liability systems, namely the European and New Zealand models, vary from the U.

The tort system affects each of these objectives in a range of ways. Safety By imposing monetary damages on tortfeasors, the tort law increases the costs to them of their activities. In the case of a defectively manufactured FDA-regulated product, the tort law penalizes the producer or potentially others along the supply chainand thus incentivizes companies to take greater precautions to prevent future production of defective goods.

For example, as discussed earlier, as a general matter, a rule establishing strict liability for product defects will shift costs to the producer, while a negligence rule may reduce the burden. Compensation One of the key distinctions between administrative and tort systems is that tort systems require legally responsible private parties to compensate the injured.

In fact, this compensating of the plaintiff by the legally responsible defendant is at the core of tort liability. The definition of compensation, including the scope and calculation of costs, such as pain and suffering, are different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Administrative systems typically do not provide compensation to injured parties, 18 and any fines or penalties assessed as a result of regulatory enforcement action inure to the treasury.

Regulatory bodies can set up compensation funds and administer them, although in the U. Availability The increased cost to manufacturers as a result of product liability lawsuits can also impact the availability of FDA-regulated products by making it no longer economically feasible to continue selling the product.

This may produce a social benefit by driving out substandard products. The Dalkon Shield case is often described in this way.Tort law, which addresses transgressions of one individual on the legal rights of another, is the foundation of civil law.

There are two types of tort: unintentional and intentional. Tort law's development was shaped not only by the risks created by technological innovation but also by the alternative compensatory and regulatory "technologies" that were introduced to control those risks or mitigate their effects.

Mergers and acquisitions ("M&A") of bank holding companies ("BHCs") and banks are subject to lengthy and sometimes unpredictable regulatory scrutiny and application processing between signing and closing.

Bank M&A applications are subject to numerous regulatory risks, including preexisting. Tort and Regulatory Risks Essay Introduction The late 20th century saw a substantial increase in lawsuits filed and petitioned against a corporation from some form of personal injury a client or customer suffered at the hands of such corporation - Tort and Regulatory Risks Essay introduction.

Describe the tort risk exposure for any organization with which you are familiar with. The exposure may include intentional torts, unintentional negligence torts, and torts arising out of strict liability.

Recognizing and Minimizing Tort and Regulatory Risk Regulatory risks are risks associated with the failure to comply with a whole host of governmental regulations. Such risks impact a company's existing assets, earnings, and often, reputation.

Regulatory and Tort Risks Plan Essay Example | Graduateway