Abstract
Recently, in Grundberg v. Upjohn Co.1 the Utah Supreme Court adopted a broad formulation of comment k to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts ("comment k").2 In so doing, the court placed Utah in the small group of jurisdictions providing immunity from strict liability design defect claims to all prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration. By precluding a cause of action in strict liability for injuries arising from dangerously designed drugs, the Grundberg decision unduly restricts the scope of strict products liability claims. The purpose of this Comment is to provide a tour through the intricacies of comment k and the consequences of its adoption in Utah. Section II analyzes the historical development of strict products liability and the approach taken by the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Next, Section III discusses the Restatement's restriction of strict products liability-comment k. Section IV then outlines the various formulations of comment k adopted in other jurisdictions, and Section V analyzes the Utah Supreme Court's position in Grundberg. This Comment concludes that the Grundberg cure has the potential for more harm than the disease it seeks to remedy and recommends an alternate course of treatment.
Recommended Citation
Trupp, Adam F.
(1992)
"A Step Backwards In Products Liability
Law- The Utah Supreme Court
and Comment,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1992:
No.
1, Article 3.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1992/iss1/3