Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 217–241 | Cite as

Europeanisation of Product Liability in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Preliminary Empirical Benchmark

Editorial note

Abstract

This report draws primarily on a survey offering a tentative but empirical benchmark of the impact of strict-liability product liability law reforms in the Asia-Pacific Region. There has been a two-fold Europeanisation of product liability in this region. First, the reforms implemented in many jurisdictions during the last 15 years have usually been based on the 1985 EC Product Liability Directive. Secondly, moving beyond the “law in books,” the survey confirms other indications of considerable convergence in the “law in action.” This largely mirrors trends from Lovells’ baseline survey of European jurisdictions completed in 2002 for the European Commission. Similar effects associated with similar reforms include small but significant increases in claims, settlements, and reactions from companies. However, these tendencies are also affected by broader (arguably inter-related) factors such as shifts in consumer consciousness and media attention. Rather than the reforms directly, increased awareness of consumer rights and the media have been identified as being more influential to the increase in claims. These factors are also very important in generating more settlements. Conventional causes of action also continue to be invoked, and there is not much call for further reform. Thus, high levels of product liability litigation remain unique to the United States. However, growing case law in certain Asia-Pacific and European jurisdictions might be synthesised into “Strict Liability Product Liability Principles.” It also seems likely that the Asia-Pacific region will continue to follow more the EU in related areas such as consumer access to justice and product safety regulation, and such harmonization may accompany the proliferating Free Trade Agreements in the region.

Keywords

Product liability Tort law reform Asia-Pacific 

References

  1. Amin, N. (2007). Product liability in Malaysia. Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Sweet and Maxwell Asia.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, U. (2006). Living in the world risk society. Hobhouse Memorial Lecture, London School of Economics, 15 February 2006. http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/sociology/pdf/Beck-LivingintheWorldRiskSociety-Feb2006.pdf.
  3. Cass, D. Z., Williams, B. G., & Barker, G. (Eds.) (2003). China and the world trading system: Entering the new millennium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cavaliere, A. (2004). Product liability in the European Union: Compensation and deterrence issues. European Journal of Law and Economics, 18, 299–318.Google Scholar
  5. Ceniza, E. (1999). Philippines. In J. Kellam (Ed.), Product liability in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 221–242). Sydney: Prospect Media.Google Scholar
  6. EC Study (2003). Lovells - Product liability in the European Union. Report for the European Commission, MARKT/2001/11/D. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regulation/goods/docs/liability/studies/lovells-study_en.pdf.
  7. Farrar, J. (1989). Harmonisation of business law between Australia and New Zealand. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 19(4), 435–463.Google Scholar
  8. Goldring, J. (1992). Victory of lobbying over reason. Australian Product Liability Reporter, 3(3), 21–25.Google Scholar
  9. Gresson, J. (1999). New Zealand. In J. Kellam (Ed.), Product liability in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 221–242). Sydney: Prospect Media.Google Scholar
  10. Haltom, W., & McCann, M. J. (2004). Distorting the law: Politics, media, and the litigation crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hamada, K. (1996). Consumers, the legal system and product liability reform: A comparative perspective between Japan and the United States. Columbia University Center on Japanese Economy and Business Working Paper, 116. http://digitalcommons.libraries.columbia.edu/japanwps/116.
  12. Howells, G. (2006). The rise of European Consumer Law—Wither National Consumer Law? Sydney Law Review, 28, 63–88.Google Scholar
  13. Kellam, J. (2000a). Product liability in the Asia-Pacific. Australian Product Liability Reporter, 10(10), 133–138.Google Scholar
  14. Kellam, J. (2000b). The Contract-Tort Dichotomy and a theoretical framework for product liability law: A comparison of the elements of liability in product liability law in Australia, France and Germany. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  15. Kellam, J., & Nottage, L. (2006). Report on Clayton Utz Asia-Pacific product liability survey. Australian Product Liability Reporter, 17(9), 121–140.Google Scholar
  16. Kellam, J., & Nottage, L. (2007). Happy 15th Birthday, TPA Part VA! Australia’s product liability morass. Competition and Consumer Law Journal, 15, 26–73.Google Scholar
  17. Kitagawa, T., & Nottage, L. (2007). Globalization of Japanese corporations and the development of corporate legal departments: Problems and prospects. In W. Alford (Ed.), Raising the bar (pp. 201–285). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, T., & Cheung, K. (2008). Hong Kong. In D. T. I. (Ed.), Product Liability Defenses. Defense Research Institute (Chicago 2008).Google Scholar
  19. Leflar, R. B., & Iwata, F. (2005). Medical error as reportable event, as tort, as crime: A transpacific comparison. Widener Law Review, 12, 195–225.Google Scholar
  20. Lenze, S. (2005). German product liability law: Between European directives, American restatements and common sense. In D. Fairgrieve (Ed.), Product liability in comparative perspective (pp. 100–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Li, J. (2006). Law on product quality control and product liability in China. Buffalo, NY: William S. Hein.Google Scholar
  22. Lui, L. (1999). Taiwan. In J. Kellam (Ed.), Product liability in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 283–310). Sydney: Prospect Media.Google Scholar
  23. Nottage, L. (2004). Product safety and liability law in Japan: From Minamata to mad cows. London: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar
  24. Nottage, L. (2005). Redirecting Japan’s multi-level governance. In K. Hopt, E. Wymeersch, H. Kanda & H. Baum (Eds.), Corporate governance in context: Corporations, state, and markets in Europe, Japan, and the US (pp. 571–598). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Nottage, L. (2006). The ABCs of product safety re-regulation in Japan: Asbestos, buildings, consumer electrical goods, and Schindler’s lifts. Griffith Law Review, 15(2), 242–286.Google Scholar
  26. Nottage, L. (2007a). Comparing product liability and safety in Japan: Path-dependent globalization. In H. Scheiber (Ed.), Emerging concepts of rights in Japanese law (pp. 143–167). Berkeley: UC Berkeley - Robbins Collection.Google Scholar
  27. Nottage, L. (2007b). Product liability and safety regulation. In G. McAlinn (Ed.), Japanese Business Law (pp. 221–62). The Hague: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. Nottage, L. (2007c). Product safety regulation reform in Australia and Japan: Harmonising towards European models? Yearbook of Consumer Law, 2007, 429–446.Google Scholar
  29. Nottage, L. (2008). Product safety. In G. Howells, et al. (Ed.), Handbook of international consumer law and policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  30. Nottage, L., & Wada, Y. (1998). Japan’s new product liability ADR centers: Bureaucratic, industry, or consumer informalism? Zeitschrift fuer Japanisches Recht, 6, 40–81.Google Scholar
  31. Ramirez, M. (2008). Thailand. In D. T. I. (Ed.), Product Liability Defenses. Defense Research Institute (Chicago 2008).Google Scholar
  32. Reimann, M. (2003a). Liability for defective products at the beginning of the twenty-first century: Emergence of a worldwide standard? American Journal of Comparative Law, 51, 751–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reimann, M. (2003b). Product liability in a global context: The hollow victory of the European model. European Review of Private Law, 11(2), 128–154.Google Scholar
  34. Stapleton, J. (1994). Product liability. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  35. Stapleton, J. (2007). Liability for drugs in the US and EU: Rhetoric and reality. The Review of Litigation, 26(4), 991–1033.Google Scholar
  36. Takaoka, S. (2006). Product defects and the value of the firm in Japan: The impact of the product liability law. Journal of Legal Studies, 35, 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trindade, F. A., Cane, P., & Lunney, M. (2007). The law of torts in Australia. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Vogel, D. (1995). Trading up: Consumer and environmental regulation in a global economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Vogel, D. (2001). The new politics of risk regulation in Europe. LSE CARR Discussion Paper, 3. http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CARR/pdf/Disspaper3.pdf.
  40. WTO (World Trade Organisation) (2007). Fourth trade policy review of India Trade Policy Review Body, 23 and 25 May 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Partner, Clayton UtzSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of LawUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations