Abstract
In Mulherin v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., the Utah Supreme Court furthered the development of Utah products liability law by adopting the doctrine of "comparative principles" to evaluate plaintiffs' contributory conduct in strict products liability cases. In holding that a comparative analysis is applicable to actions based on strict products liability, the court followed the majority of other courts that have addressed the issue. The rationale for this emerging doctrine is similar to that which lead to the parallel theory of comparative negligence: a desire to ameliorate the harshness of rules totally barring recovery where plaintiff's conduct contributed to his injury. Formulating a logically consistent standard for comparing plaintiffs' and defendants' relative responsibility in strict products liability cases poses significant analytical difficulties. Those difficulties can be resolved, however, and the adoption of comparative principles should result in a more equitable allocation of product-related losses.
Recommended Citation
Wilkey, Mark E.
(1982)
"Mulherin v. Ingersoll: Utah Adopts Comparative
Principles in Strict Products Liability Cases,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1982:
No.
2, Article 9.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1982/iss2/9