THE TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

ANALYZING THE PRODUCT LIABILITY ISSUE WITH THE CONTRACTUAL LAW

SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF B.COM. L.L.B (Hons.), THIRD SEMESTER

Submitted to: Prof. S. Deepika

Submitted by: Karan Kumar Khetani

Registration no: BCO140026

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1

I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind support and help

of many individuals and organizations. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.

I am highly indebted to the faculty of TNNLS for their guidance and constant supervision as well as for

providing necessary information regarding the project and also for their support in completing the project. I

would like to express my gratitude towards my parents and mentors for their kind cooperation and

encouragement which help me in completion of this project. I would like to express my special gratitude and

thanks to all for giving me such attention and time. My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleagues in

developing the project and people who have willingly helped me out with their abilities.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

1. Abstract……………………………………………,……………………………………….04

2. Introduction………………………………………..……………………………………….05

3. Review of the Existing Literature………………………………………………………….07

4. Case Study- The McDonalds’ Trouble…………………………………………………….08

5. Conclusions and Suggestions……………………………………………………………....17

6. References………………………………………………………………………………….18

ABSTRACT

Introduction:

3

Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause. Although the word "product" has broad connotations, product liability as an area of law is traditionally limited to products in the form of tangible personal property.

Objective:

The research work aims at revealing the real legal issues that have been time and again raised over the Concept of Product Liability.

Scope:

The research project takes into its ambit certain questions such as what should be the extent till which product liability can be fixed upon the producer or seller and till what quantum is the consumer liable for the products he purchases and/or consumes.

Extent:

The research work would only cover the Indian Scenario and Case laws over the issue of Product Liability.

Research Methodology:

The research would follow the doctrinal research methodology.

INTRODUCTION

The next time you walk into a retail store like Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Office Depot, Babies R’ Us/Toy

R’ Us, you will see a board, typically in plain sight of the viewing public, with sheets of papers titled “Product

4

Recall” or Safety Recall or something of the like. Recalled items run the gamut of consumers good and are

generally recalled because of a safety or health concerns. The Food and Drug Administration regularly issues

recalls or public safety notices for Medical Products, Pharmaceuticals, Tobacco, and contaminated food items.

Product Liability is the responsibility of manufacturers, distributors and sellers, they are expected to act in the

best interest of the public; to deliver a product free of defects which can harm an individual or persons; and to

make good on that responsibility if their products are defective. These can include faulty auto brakes,

contaminated baby food, exploding bottles of beer, flammable children's pajamas, or lack of label warnings.

The key element in products liability law is that a person who suffers harm from a product need not prove

negligence, since the negligence is "presumed" and the result is "strict liability" (absolute responsibility) on the

seller, distributor and manufacturer. An injured person usually need only sue the seller and let him/her/it bring

the manufacturer or distributor into the lawsuit or require contribution toward a judgment. (Gerald Hill, et al

2002). In the following paragraphs we will discuss and analyze the different types of product liability,

regulatory bodies involved in product recalls and or safety, legal issues regarding product liability and

ramifications of non-recalls.

Product Liability, at its core, is about consumer protection and safety. Firms have a legal obligation to not

purposefully sell harmful products to consumers, also they have the responsibility to recall defective products

when it is determined they cause injury or danger. Here are a few ways in which a manufactures can be held

responsible for the products they sell:

* Inherent Risks-Some products or services, medical procedures for example, come with an inherent risk that

the firm cannot mitigate. The firm must inform the consumer of these risks to lessen their liability.

* Design Defects-The design of the product may create a dangerous condition, a steam vaporizer whose center

of gravity is so high that the unit is likely to fall over. (Crawford, Di Benedetto) Second, the product may be

absent a safety device, a cold therapy machine that does not have an automatic shut off function for example.

Lastly, inadequate materials which deteriorate after usage, a car seat strap that breaks into piece when chewed

on by a child while riding in a car.

* Defects in manufacturing-Even if the product is well designed the use of inadequate quality techniques may

result in a defective unit. An example would be a poorly welded chassis of a child’s wagon toy.

* Inadequate instructions for use or inadequate warnings about dangers of misuse-firms have to take into

account all consumer behavior toward a products use. Warnings and instructions for use should be visible on the

5

product and direct the consumer on the appropriate use of the item in question. Improper labeling and

instruction could lead to a liability claim against the company for an injury sustained for improper use of a

product. An example of this would be the instructions car seat manufactures place on give for using the cars

seatbelt with the safety seat.

In India, Product liability law governs the liability of manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and vendors for

injury to a person or property caused by dangerous or defective products. The goal of product liability laws is to

help protect consumers from dangerous or defective products, while holding manufacturers, distributors and

retailers responsible for putting into the market place products that they knew or should have known were

dangerous or defective.

The following Acts and Laws in India deal with the issue of Product Liability.

(i) Law of Torts as laid down by Courts through Precedents;

(ii) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “CPA”);

(iii) The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the “MRTP Act”);

(iv) The Sale of Goods Act, 1930;

(v) The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The Research Study in question being a submission relating to the Contracts Act and the Sale of Goods Act, it

would majorly emphasize on these two topics in the essence.

REVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE

6

The issue of the analysis of Product Liability is not new. In fact, there have been more than a few Scholarly Works which brilliantly put light on this important topic, a few of which are listed below.

Besterfield Dale H., Dale H. Besterfield, Carol Besterfield-Michna, Glen H. Besterfield, Mary

Besterfield-Sacre, Hermant Urdhwareshe, Rashmi Urdhwareshe | Pearson Education India, 2011 - Total

Quality Management

Sanjay Kaptan | Sarup & Sons, 01-Jan-2003 - Consumer Movement in India.

Harry Duintjer Tebbens | BRILL, 01-Jan-1979 - International Product Liability: A Study of

Comparative and International Legal Aspects of Product Liability

CASE STUDY | THE MC’DONALDS’ TROUBLE

THE CASE OF LIEBECK VS. MCDONALDS:

7

Relentlessly controversial in nature, this case continued to be the answer to the journalists’ prayer until it was

settled. Liebeck vs. McDonalds aroused the interest of both the media and legal community and held public

attention for its lifetime. Initially, the case took off like most frivolous lawsuits in which the plaintiff’s aim is to

milk the negligence of the organization for monetary gain. Generating continual momentum for the lawsuit was

the public empathy and identification with Liebeck in a classical “little David and big, ugly Goliath” setting. It

seemed clear that Liebeck was negligent in not exercising caution in handling her coffee but in the end, it was

“found that MdDonald’s was 80% responsible for the incident, while Liebeck was 20% at fault” 1

Liebeck vs. McDonalds became a landmark case that has been used to argue in favor of a need for a change in

the interpretation and application of tort law in the legal environments.

THE PRODUCT AND PRODUCT SAFETY ISSUE

McDonald's Corporation is the global king of the fast food industry, operating over 31,000 restaurants on a

global scale with world-wide employees totaling more than 1.5 million people. The McDonalds Corporation,

famous for being the 6th most valuable brand globally according to the 2010 Interbrand Best Global Brands

report, is ranked as the #1 restaurant and provides food and beverage service to 60 million customers around the

world on a daily basis (Interbrand).

The size of the organization and the success of past financial windfall seekers serves as a continual

encouragement to people to look for ways in which they can have a bite of the fortune of the colossal

McDonalds Corporation fortune. The restaurant has ruggedly endured some frivolous lawsuit in its 70 years

existence, most of them having nothing to do with safety while the plaintiffs claim negligence on the part of the

organization, from that of NYPD cop John Florio (NY) and VjollcaLecaj ( sued for $600,000.00 in Chicago),

who filed individual cases against McDonalds for allegedly finding some pieces of glass in their chicken

sandwiches (McDonalds Lawsuits) to lawsuits for marketing happy meals to children, promoting bad health and

circumventing parental by giving them toys in happy meals (Los Angeles Times).

THE LAWSUIT

On a fateful day of February, 1992, the foundation for the biggest lawsuit against McDonalds occurred when 79

year old woman, Stella Liebeck from Albuquerque, New Mexico rode with her grandson through the drive

through lane to purchase a 49 cent coffee cup. On receiving the cup, she placed it between her legs and

1 http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stella:Liebeck.htm|8

proceeded to open the cup in order to add some condiments when the scalding hot coffee poured unto her

thighs, bottoms and groin. The cotton sweat pants she wore made matters worse be absorbing the hot liquid,

resulting in some serious third degree burn over 6% of her body (O’Brien, Shafner, Stuart, Kelly & Morris,

1999).

The elderly lady was admitted at the hospital and was there for eight days; her skin was grafted, lost 20 pounds

and also went through over a year of medical treatment, missing work. The initial amount sued for was just

$20,000.00 and the daughter’s lost wages (O’Brien, Shafner, Stuart, Kelly & Morris, 1999) which McDonalds

met with a counteroffer of only $800.00 with a defense that the lady did not exercise diligent care and was

negligent because it is public knowledge that coffee is hot. As if taking offense to McDonalds’ response, her

attorney increased the requested compensatory damages and punitive damages to $100,000.00.

THE ISSUES

An experiment was carried which revealed that McDonald’s coffee was much hotter than that provided by

similar services in the same locality at about 185 degrees Celsius which the organization claimed was required

to have the taste required. It was also revealed that many people had fallen prey to McDonald’s coffee with

some victims sustaining 3rd degree burns similar to Stella Liebeck’s which serve as a precedence for the court

that McDonalds was aware of potential danger presented by their coffee (O’Brien, Shafner, Stuart, Kelly &

Morris,1999).

The main issue being negligence involving tortuous liability but in order to stick to the contractual Law, we will

stick to the Manufacturer’s liability under Sales of goods Act and Indian Contracts Act.

THE LEGAL THEORIES

The case also involves Negligence which is defined as the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the

circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may

9

be injuriously affected by the want of such care and Reasonable care, which is the care amount or quality of

care that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances, which doubles as the

standard for determining legal duty2.

Proximate cause is an event that is sufficiently related to a harm that has occurred to be considered a primary

cause of the harm. The question here that arises, was McDonald’s coffee the causal reason for Ms. Liebeck’s

third degree burns? Did they foresee the occurrence of the occurrence? Breach of the care is defined as the legal

obligation imposed on a person with the requirement that they adhere to a reasonable standard of care while

performing (an) act or acts that could cause foreseeable harm to others, that is, did McDonalds know that their

coffee could cause injury to their customers?

THE RESOLUTION

The six man, six woman deliberated for four hours to arrive at $200, 000 compensatory damages which was

reduced by 20% and $2.7m in punitive damages, which also was reduced to $480,000 (Gallivan, White &

Boyd). By mutual agreement, McDonalds and the plaintiffs settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

MY OPINION

Despite the fact that Liebeck’s situation was an accident, McDonalds breached their duty of care by not

sufficiently warning their customers of the potential danger that could result if customers did not handle their

hot coffee cups with utmost care. Also, customer safety should take precedent over the delivery of certain

coffee taste. If the organization had not been negligent in the observation of the duty of care, the injury would

have been averted. I am convinced that the proximate cause of 80% attributed to McDonalds and 20% attributed

to the plaintiff was very just.

THE AFTERMATHS

The news media, the day after the verdict, established that coffee at the McDonald’s in Albuquerque is now sold

at 158 degrees. At that temperature, it would take about 60 seconds to cause third-degree burns, considerably

significantly reducing the risk factor in McDonald’s coffee (Gallivan, White & Boyd). Therefore, McDonalds

was forced to exercise some level of corporate responsibility by reducing the temperature of its coffee and the

2 Steven H. Gifis, BARRON'S LAW DICTIONARY, (6th Ed, Barron's Educational Series, 2010)10

public was made aware of the potential danger of hot coffee. Worldwide, the company now uses much bigger

and legible warning on their coffee cups to prevent a reoccurrence of the Liebeck case.

REGULATORY AUTHORITIES

National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation, the Food and Drug Administration and US Food and

Drug Administration are some of the agencies in charge of regulating McDonalds operations and products. The

Food and Drug Administration is directly responsible for the oversight of McDonald’s operations. The Food

and Drug Administration, FDA for short, has oversight of food safety, hygiene and substance generally

recognized as safe.

PREVENTION OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES

Working proactively with organizations like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Food and Drug Safety

Administration and the National Institute of Food and Drug Administration will help McDonalds prevent

similar reoccurrences of lawsuits. Also, the implementation of effective product liability management will go

very far McDonalds in preventing such frivolous lawsuits

CONTEXT AND LEGAL BASIS

In today’s dynamic and innovative business environment, every day a new product is conceptualized by

designers/ manufactures and is put to display for sale to attract customers and earn huge profits. However, in

this pursuit, it may happen that the said product develops a defect for any reason which may have been

overlooked by the designers/ manufacturers in the hurry to launch the said product. Such situations result in

cases where due to a faulty or a damaged product the consumer suffers a loss or an injury. The said situation

coupled with an educated consumer (i.e. one who is aware of his rights) gives rise to a product liability claim

makes the situation difficult for the companies whose products are deficient. The jurisprudence relating to

product liability in India has been constantly evolving and in the recent times the Indian courts have also

adopted a pro-consumer approach while deciding on product liability claims. The courts in India are generally

guided by the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.

Following the way paved by an English case of Donoghue v Stevenson which provided the principle of ‘duty of

care’, Indian Laws are also conditioned for protecting the consumers from any damage or injury caused due to

11

such faulty or dangerous products and holding the manufacturers and/ or distributors and/ or retailers and/ or

packers responsible for any such damage or injury.

The term product liability may be understood to be the liability of any or all of the parties along the

manufacturing and supply chain of a product, arising due to any damage or injury caused by such product.

Products containing inherent defects that cause harm to a consumer of the product are the primary subject

matter of product liability claims. In India there is no specific statute which governs the product liability claims

and the term product liability is also not defined under any Indian statute.

In the absence of any specific Indian statute the Indian product liability law can be said to have been emerging

from different Indian statues and the product liability claims could be ascertained under the following Indian

statutes/ laws (hereinafter together referred to as “Indian Laws”): the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA);

the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (SGA); The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA); Specific statutes pertaining to

specific goods such as the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Legal

Metrology Act, 2009, etc. (hereinafter together referred to as Specific Statutes); and the Common Law

principles.3

Based on this legal framework, a product liability claim may be based on negligence, strict liability or breach of

warranty of fitness, depending on the respective law under which the claim is based. The most essential aspect

of product liability claim is that the defect must be proved.

These defects can be broadly categorized as design defects (i.e. inherent defects in the design of the product),

manufacturing defects (i.e. defects which occur during the manufacturing process of the product) or marketing

defects (i.e. relating to wrong or incomplete instructions/ warnings on the packaging of the product).

WHO CAN CLAIM

The availability of the right to claim product liability inter alia depends on the respective law under which the

case is proposed to be filed. Under the CPA, a complainant has been defined as a consumer, or a registered

voluntary consumer association or Central Government or the State Government, or more than one consumers

3 •Besterfield Dale H., Dale H. Besterfield, Carol Besterfield-Michna, Glen H. Besterfield, Mary Besterfield-Sacre, Hermant Urdhwareshe, Rashmi Urdhwareshe | Pearson Education India, 2011 - Total Quality Management•Sanjay Kaptan | Sarup & Sons, 01-Jan-2003 - Consumer Movement in India.•Harry Duintjer Tebbens | BRILL, 01-Jan-1979 - International Product Liability: A Study of Comparative and International Legal Aspects of Product Liability12

(where there are more than one consumers) having the same interest, and the legal heir or representative of the

consumer (in the event of the consumer’s death), who or which makes a complaint. The CPA defines a

consumer as a person who buys goods or hires/avails of any service for a consideration, including any user/

beneficiary of the goods/services other than the person who buys such goods/hires or avails such services for a

consideration, when such use is made/services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person. It

does not include a person: (i) who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) who

avails of such services for any commercial purposes.

However, under the terms of the SGA and the ICA, the ‘buyer’ and the ‘party to the contract’, respectively have

the right to file a product liability claim.

DEFECTS AND STANDARD OF DEFECT

It is important to note that the defect and standard of defect pertaining to a product inter alia depends and varies

from one law to another. It is, therefore, possible that a claim relating to a particular defect may not be covered

under one law but squarely fall under the purview of the other.

For example, the CPA defines the term ‘defect’ as any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality,

quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being

in force or under any contract, express of implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in

relation to any goods. Therefore, a complaint in respect of any other defects which do not fall within the scope

of the above definition cannot be made under the CPA.

Under other laws, a product may be considered defective if: (i) an implied warranty or condition as to the

quality or fitness for any particular purpose for the product is breached; or (ii) the seller fails to fulfill its

fundamental obligation under a contract; in which case no term of the contract can relieve the seller of its

respective fundamental duty; or (iii) the statues governing specific goods require certain specific compliances

like branding, labeling etc., then, any breach or non-compliance of such requirements. Further, the standards by

which a product may be deemed to be defective also depends upon the terms and conditions of the contract

along with any warranties or guarantees provided under such contract.

LEGAL PROCEDURE

The appropriate forum for filing a product liability claim inter alia depends on the respective law under which

the consumer wishes to file the complaint as well as the monetary relief sought. A claim under the CPA is

required to be filed in the District Consumer Forum/State Commission/National Commission, which have been 13

constituted under the CPA, depending on their respective jurisdiction. Under any other law, the basic

structure/hierarchy of the Indian courts will have to be followed. It may be noted that irrespective of the forum,

the burden of proof lies on the party alleging the defect. Further, the limitation period for filing a product

liability claim shall depend on the respective law under which the claim is sought. While the CPA provides the

limitation period of two years, other laws give three years from the date on which the cause of action (product

defect) has arisen.

POSSIBLE DEFENSES

Once the claim has been initiated by a consumer in an appropriate forum, the accused person may take defenses

such as: (i) product being compliant with statutory standards prescribed for the said product; (ii) defect being

caused by negligence of the consumer/ buyer; (iii) consumer/buyer had examined the goods prior to purchase;

(iv) contractually agreed warranties, waivers, disclaimers and limitation on liability; or (v) expiration of

limitation period. It is important to note that the permissibility of any of the aforesaid defenses shall be at the

sole discretion of the appropriate forum and also depend on the respective case.

PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS – REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO CONSUMER

Compensatory Damages: The court /forum may award compensation to the consumer/buyer for any loss or

injury suffered due to the negligence of the seller.

Non-Compensatory Damages: Under the terms of the ICA, the party who suffers loss on account of breach of

contract by the other party is entitled to receive, from the party who has breached the contract, compensation for

any loss or damage caused to it, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which

the parties knew, when they made the contract, likely to result from the breach of it. As per the Indian law,

indirect or consequential damages cannot be awarded. Moreover, damages such as incidental, special, punitive

and exemplary are not specifically provided for under the Indian law.

Other Damages: In terms of the applicable Indian Laws, any aggrieved party may claim for: (i) removal of

defect from the respective product; (ii) replacement of the product with a new product of similar description

which shall be free from any defect; (iii) refund of the purchase price; (iv) discontinuance of unfair trade

practice or restrictive trade practice, as the case may be; (v) cease and desist orders in the manufacturing of

hazardous goods; or (vi) withdrawal of hazardous goods from being offered for sale.

14

CRIMINAL LIABILITY

The CPA provides that where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or

omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission,

as the case may be, then, such trader or person or complainant be punished with imprisonment for a term which

shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years; a fine, which shall not be less than 2,000

rupees but which may extend to 10,000 rupees; or both. Further, the provisions of the India Penal Code 1860 are

also enriched by the elements of cheating and fraud that are attributed to the defects in the products supplied to

the consumers. It is important to note that criminal liability may also arise in terms of the specific statues

depending on from case to case.

PRODUCT RECALL

Product recall is a request to return to the maker a batch or an entire production run of a product, usually due to

the discovery of safety issues. The recall is generally an effort to limit liability for corporate negligence (which

can cause costly penalties) and to improve or avoid damage to publicity. However, product recalls are costly to

a company because they often entail replacing the re-called product or paying for damage caused by use,

although possibly less costly than the costs caused by damage to brand name and reduced trust in the

manufacturer. Presently, India does not have any specific law or statute or provision which may mandatorily

require a product recall exercise to be undertaken.

RISK MITIGATION

A product liability claim has the potential of overthrowing any business. It is, therefore, essential for every

company to take adequate measures to shield itself from such potential damage. One of the means adopted by

companies across the globe is by procuring a product liability insurance cover. This protects the respective

companies from and against any losses suffered due to a product liability claim. It is, however, essential to read

and understand the exclusions provided under such insurance covers before purchasing them. The premiums to

be paid to the insurers in relation to such insurance covers are primarily based on the nature of the product (as

the risk and liability is directly linked to the nature of the product) and its sales volume (as this reflects the reach

of the product). This means that every company discloses the correct details of a respective product at the time

of procuring the respective product liability insurance cover.

GOVERNMENT’S INITIATIVE

15

The Indian government is taking significant measures to make consumers aware of their rights with respect to

any loss or injury caused due to a defective product, irrespective of their educational credentials. The ‘Jago

Grahak Jago’ campaign was aimed at enhancing consumer awareness by advertizing the rights available to

them. The Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs also started the National Consumer Helpline Project (NCH

Project), a telephone helpline, to help consumers deal with a multitude of problems arising in their day-to-day

dealings with business and service providers. On a national toll-free number, a consumer can seek information,

advice or guidance for his/her queries, complaints and guidance. The NCH Project supports the consumers by:

(i) guiding consumers in finding solutions to problems related to products and services; (ii) providing

information related to companies and regulatory authorities; (iii) facilitating consumers in filing complaints

against defaulting service providers; (iv) empowering consumers to use available consumer grievances redressal

mechanisms; and (v) educating consumers about their rights and responsibilities.

APPROPRIATE INDIAN CASE: Uma Deepak V Maruti Udyog Ltd & Others (2003)CPJ 90 (MRTP).

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

In the light of the above discussion, it should be noted that it is important for a consumer to identify the correct

law before filing a product liability claim. If chosen wrongly, the claim may not be sustained in the respective

16

court or forum. It should also be kept in mind that the time taken by a respective court or forum in deciding the

claim may run into a couple of years inter alia. This should, however, not discourage the consumer to file a

product liability claim. Further, considering that damages such as incidental, special, punitive and exemplary

are not specifically provided for under the Indian law, the compensation amount which the customer receives

may at times be insignificant compared to the hardship suffered in pursuing the case. In this situation, one can

say that the initiatives being taken by the Indian government, which are playing an important role in educating

the consumers about their rights, may fall short of the desired result predominantly for two reasons -- (i) they

are CPA centric; and (ii) they do not provide a solution to the above issues/concerns.

One may, therefore, conclude this study stressing on the urgency to codify and consolidate the law governing

product liability under one specific statute.

REFERENCES

BOOKS:

17

1.Besterfield Dale H., Dale H. Besterfield, Carol Besterfield-Michna, Glen H. Besterfield, Mary Besterfield-

Sacre, Hermant Urdhwareshe, Rashmi Urdhwareshe | TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, (Pearson

Education India, 2011)

2. Sanjay Kaptan, CONSUMER MOVEMENT IN INDIA, (Sarup & Sons, 01-Jan-2003)

3. Harry Duintjer Tebbens, INTERNATIONAL PRODUCT LIABILITY: A STUDY OF COMPARATIVE

AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ASPECTS OF PRODUCT LIABILITY (BRILL, 01-Jan-1979)

WEBSITES:

1. http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stella:Liebeck.htm (Last Visited on 25 April, 2014)

2. http://doihavealawsuit.com/lawyer-attorney/personal-injury-lawsuit-lawyer/276 (Last Visited on 25 April,

2014)

3. http://indiainfoline.com/ (Last Visited on 25 April, 2014)

4. http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html (Last Visited on 25 April, 2014)

5. http://www.isapindia.org/ (Last Visited on 25 April, 2014)

18