The General Assembly,
Affirming that consumers have the right to purchase products with the reasonable expectation that such products will not injure them when used appropriately,
to this end resolves that:
1. A Court of International Claims (CIC), which shall consist of a Trial Division and an Appellate Division, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all torts that may occur involving hazardous products in international commerce pursuant to section 3;
2. Any person (natural or legal) who suffers physical or emotional harm or loss of consortium due to some hazardous product in international commerce, or the survivor or representative of such a person if they have died, has the right to sue the manufacturer, including manufacturers of component parts, distributor, and retailer responsible for said product in the CIC Trial Division;
3. Each case in the CIC Trial Division shall be heard by one trial judge, and shall be decided based on the preponderance of the evidence and according to the following tests:
- Manufacturing defect: If the plaintiff can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the particular product was faulty in its manufacture and the manufacturing defect was both the factual and proximate cause of the injury, then the plaintiff may recover compensatory, including hedonic, damages. For the purposes of this resolution, a product's manufacture is defective when the particular unit departs from the design of an ordinary unit. The paradigmatic example is a malfunctioning unit;
- Design defect: If the plaintiff can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the particular product was faulty in design and that the design defect was both the factual and proximate cause of the injury, then the plaintiff may recovery compensatory, including hedonic, damages. Depending on the severity of the defect and the potential egregiousness of the oversight, the CIC Trial Division may award punitive damage. For the purposes of this resolution, a product's design is defective when the design embodies excessive preventable danger, unless the benefits of the design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design. The plaintiff in general must offer a reasonable alternative design that would have reduced the foreseeable risk of injury. The plaintiff does not need to provide a reasonable alternative design if they can establish to the satisfaction of the CIC Trial Division that the product in question was irreducibly dangerous, which means its value may be considered minimal;
- Warning defects: If the plaintiff can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the particular product's warning was inadequate, then the plaintiff may recovery compensatory, including hedonic, damages. The CIC Trial Division shall adopt a heeding presumption, which means that it will presume as a matter of law that an ordinary consumer will read the warning; the burden falls to the defendant to show that the user would not have followed an adequate warning if one had been given. Warnings must be provided for inherent risks that reasonably foreseeable users of the product would reasonably deem significant in deciding whether they will use or consume the product. The CIC Trial Division may consider the following factors in determining whether a product's warning is adequate:
- whether the warning adequately indicates the scope of the danger posed by the product,
- whether the warning communicates the extent of the harm that may result from misuse,
- whether the warning itself would alert a reasonably prudent person to the danger;
4. Manufacturers, including manufacturers of component parts, distributors, and retailers that sell products which fall under the rules established in section 3 shall remain liable, even if the those parties have taken all possible precautions in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of their product or the user of the product did not purchase it from the manufacturer or enter into any contractual relation with it;
5. The plaintiff and the defendant shall each have the right, within 90 days, to make an appeal to the CIC Appellate Division. Each appeal shall be heard by three appellate judges; and they shall have the power, by majority vote, to vacate the judgment and order a retrial in the CIC Trial Division if they find that the trial judge engaged in judicial misconduct or made a decision that is clearly erroneous;
6. Member nations are forbidden from immunizing, legally or in practice, their domestic manufacturers from either the jurisdiction of the CIC or liability generally under the terms of this resolution;
7. Members nations are encouraged to adopt independently domestic quality standards to diminish the likelihood of public consumption of hazardous products;
8. The ability to establish and enforce domestic tort and consumer protection law in disputes between domestic parties is reserved to member nations, under the terms of this resolution; and
9. Nothing in the terms of this resolution shall preclude the World Assembly from expanding the mandate of the CIC, within the bounds of extant World Assembly law.
Co-authored by Christian Democrats