Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T17:27:44.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Network Analysis and the Diffusion of the Strict Liability Rule for Manufacturing Defects, 1963–87

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Robert C. Bird  and
Donald J. Smythe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports the results of a study that uses social network analysis to compare the persuasiveness of legal precedents in the diffusion of the strict liability rule for manufacturing defects. This new study tests which legal precedents were most influential and also whether certain state judicial variables influenced the diffusion process. The results are striking. The federal circuit regions appear to define an important reference group in the diffusion process, and social network effects dominate economic and political variables. In addition, the de facto separation of powers in the enactment of new state legislation appears to influence courts' propensities to adopt the strict liability rule. When the executive and legislative branches were controlled by the same political party, regardless of whether it was Republican or Democratic, state courts were more inclined to adopt the strict liability rule.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , Summer 2012 , pp. 565 - 594
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Ahuja, Gautam. 2000. Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study. Administrative Science Quarterly 45 (3): 425–55.Google Scholar
Albany Law Review. 2005. Symposium sponsored by the New York State‐Federal Judicial Council: The Use of Legislative History in Interpreting New York State and Federal Statutes. Albany Law Review 68 (3): 723–54.Google Scholar
Allison, Paul. 1982. Discrete‐Time Methods for the Analysis of Event Histories. Sociological Methodology 13 (1): 61–98.Google Scholar
Annual Judicial Conference: Second Judicial Circuit of the United States. 1987. Proceedings in Federal Rules Decisions 115:349–468.Google Scholar
Armatas, Andrew. 2002. The Colorado Judicial Coordinating Council Works to Improve the Judiciary. Colorado Lawyer 31:37–38.Google Scholar
Bird, Robert, and Smythe, Donald. 2008. The Structure of American Legal Institutions and the Diffusion of Wrongful‐Discharge Laws, 1978–99. Law & Society Review 42 (4): 833–63.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick, and Witmer, Richard. 2004. Disentangling Diffusion: The Effects of Social Learning and Economic Competition on State Policy Innovation and Expansion. Political Research Quarterly 57 (1): 39–51.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald. 1980. Models of Network Structure. Annual Review of Sociology 6: 79–141.Google Scholar
Gregory, Caldeira. 1985. The Transmission of Legal Precedent: A Study of State Supreme Courts. American Political Science Review 79 (1): 178–94.Google Scholar
Gregory, Caldeira. 1988. Legal Precedent: Structures of Communication between State Supreme Courts. Social Networks 10 (1): 29–55.Google Scholar
Canon, Bradley, and Baum, Lawrence. 1981. Patterns of Adopting Tort Law Innovations: An Application of Diffusion Theory to Judicial Doctrines. American Political Science Review 75 (4): 975–87.Google Scholar
Carp, Robert. 1972. The Scope and Function of Intra‐Circuit Judicial Communication: A Case Study of the Eighth Circuit. Law & Society Review 6 (3): 405–26.Google Scholar
Cohen, Morris, and Olson, Kent. 1996. Legal Research in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Cooter, R., and Ginsburg, T. 1996. Comparative Judicial Discretion: An Empirical Test of Economic Models. International Review of Law & Economics 16 (3): 295–314.Google Scholar
Cooter, Robert. 2000. The Strategic Constitution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cooter, Robert, and Ulen, Thomas. 2008. Law and Economics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Dodd, Donald. 1993. Historical Statistics of the United States: Two Centuries of the Census. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Elazar, Daniel. 1984. American Federalism. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Epstein, L., Knight, Jack, and Shvetsova, Olga. 2001. The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government. Law & Society Review 35 (1): 117–64.Google Scholar
Fishback, Price, and Kantor, Shawn Everett. 1998. The Adoption of Workers' Compensation in the United States, 1900–1930. Journal of Law & Economics 41 (2): 305–42.Google Scholar
Galaskiewicz, Joseph, and Wasserman, Stanley. 1981. A Dynamic Study of Change in a Regional Corporate Network. American Sociological Review 46 (4): 475–84.Google Scholar
Garrett, G., Kelemen, R. Daniel, and Schulz, Heiner 1998. The European Court of Justice, National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union. International Organization 52 (1): 149–76.Google Scholar
Geistfield, Mark. 2003. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.: Strict Products Liability Unbound. In Torts Stories, ed. Rabin, Robert and Sugarman, Stephen, 229–58. New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Goes, James, and Ho Park, Seung. 1997. Interorganizational Links and Innovation: The Case of Hospital Services. Academy of Management Journal 40 (3): 673–96.Google Scholar
Hackney, James. 1995. The Intellectual Origins of American Strict Products Liability: A Case Study in American Pragmatic Instrumentalism. American Journal of Legal History 39 (4): 443–509.Google Scholar
Hausman, J. 1978. Specification Tests in Econometrics. Econometrica 46 (6): 1251–71.Google Scholar
Heckman, J., and Singer, B. 1984. A Method for Minimizing the Impact of Distributional Assumptions in Econometric Models for Duration Data. Econometrica 52 (2): 271–320.Google Scholar
Henderson, James Jr., and Eisenberg, Theodore. 1990. The Quiet Revolution in Products Liability: An Empirical Study of Legal Change. UCLA Law Review 37 (3): 479–553.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Stephen. 1995. Easy Methods for Discrete‐Time Duration Models. Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics 57 (1): 129–38.Google Scholar
Mahoney, Paul. 2003. The Origins of the Blue‐Sky Laws: A Test of Competing Hypotheses. Journal of Law & Economics 46 (1): 229–51.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K., and Kitt, Alice S. 1950. Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior. In Studies in the Scope and Method of The American Soldier , ed. Merton, Robert K. and Lazarsfeld, Paul F., 40–105. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Mooney, Christopher. 2001. Modeling Regional Effects on State Policy Diffusion. Political Research Quarterly 54 (1): 103–24.Google Scholar
Newman, Barbara, and Newman, Philip R. 2008. Development through Life: A Psychosocial Approach. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Owen, David. 2007. The Evolution of Products Liability Law. Review of Litigation 26 (4): 955–89.Google Scholar
Pawlak, Ronald, and Moore, David W. 197879. The Role of the Federal Court in the Expansion of the Ambit of Manufacturers: Conceptual Approaches and a Suggested Solution. Drake Law Review 28 (2): 389–406.Google Scholar
Peters, Ellen. 1992. State‐Federal Judicial Relationships: A Report from the Trenches. Virginia Law Review 78 (8): 1887–93.Google Scholar
Priest, George. 1985. The Invention of Enterprise Liability: A Critical History of the Intellectual Foundations of Modern Tort Law. Journal of Legal Studies 14 (3): 461–527.Google Scholar
Rogers, Everett. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rohrschneider, Robert, and Dalton, Russell. 2002. A Global Network? Transnational Cooperation among Environmental Groups. Journal of Politics 64 (2): 510–33.Google Scholar
Sisk, Gregory, Heise, Michael, and Morriss, Andrew P 1998. Charting the Influences on the Judicial Mind: An Empirical Study of Judicial Reasoning. New York University Law Review 73 (5): 1377–1498.Google Scholar
Stidham, Ronald, and Carp, Robert A. 1988. Exploring Regionalism in the Federal District Circuits. Publius 18 (4): 113–25.Google Scholar
US Courts. 2003. Together, Federal and State Judges Find Solutions to Mutual Concerns. The Third Branch 9 (12): 35. http://www.uscourts.gov/News/TheThirdBranch/03‐12‐01/Together_Federal_and_State_Judges_Find_Solutions_to_Mutual_Concerns.aspx (accessed October 1, 2011).Google Scholar
Van den Bulte, Christophe, and Lilien, Gary. 1999. Integrating Models of Innovation Adoption: Social Network Thresholds, Utility Maximization, and Hazard Models. Working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Van den Bulte, Christophe, and Lilien, Gary. 2001. Medical Innovation Revisited: Social Contagion Versus Marketing Effort. American Journal of Sociology 106 (5): 1409–35.Google Scholar
Walsh, David. 1997. On the Meaning and Pattern of Legal Citations: Evidence from State Wrongful Discharge Precedent Cases. Law & Society Review 31 (2): 337–62.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Russell. 1992. Origins of the Elements of Federal Court Governance. Federal Judicial Center. http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/governce.pdf/$File/governce.pdf (accessed February 19, 2011.Google Scholar
Witt, John Fabian. 2007. Patriots and Cosmopolitans: Hidden Histories of American Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Beetler v. Zotos, 388 F.2d 243 (7th Cir. 1967).Google Scholar
Beshada v. Johns_Manville Products Corp., 447 A.2d 539 (N.J. 1982).Google Scholar
Bustamonte v. Carborundum Co., 375 F.2d 688 (7th Cir. 1967).Google Scholar
Buttrick v. Arthur Lessard & Sons, Inc., 110 N.H. 36 (NH 1969).Google Scholar
Dazenko v. James Hunter Machine Co., 393 F.2d 287 (7th Cir. 1968).Google Scholar
Escola v. Coca‐Cola Bottling Co., 150 P.2d 436 (Cal. 1944).Google Scholar
Greenman v. Yuba Power, Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57 (Cal. 1963).Google Scholar
Greeno v. Clark Equipment Co., 237 F. Supp. 427 (N.D. Ind. 1965).Google Scholar
Hagenbuch v. Snap‐On Tools Corp., 339 F. Supp. 676 (D.N.H. 1973).Google Scholar
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916).Google Scholar
McCue v. Norwich Pharmacal Co., 453 F.2d 1033 (1st Cir. 1972).Google Scholar
McKee v. Brunswick Corp., 354 F.2d 577 (7th Cir. 1965).Google Scholar
Nelson v. Volkswagon of America, Inc., 315 F. Supp. 1120 (D.N.H. 1970).Google Scholar
Rigby v. Beech Aircraft Co., 548 F.2d 288 (10th Cir. 1977).Google Scholar
Sills v. Massey‐Ferguson, Inc., 296 F. Supp. 776 (N.D. Ind. 1969).Google Scholar
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 37 523 N.E.2d 489 (Ohio 1988).Google Scholar
Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill. 2d 612 (Ill. 1965).Google Scholar
Turcotte v. Ford Motor Co., 494 F.2d 173 (1st Cir. 1974).Google Scholar
Wallner v. Kitchens of Sara Lee, Inc., 419 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1969).Google Scholar
Winterbottom v. Wright, 152 Eng. Rep. 402 (Ex. 1842).Google Scholar