Article:
William C. Powers, Jr., The Persistence of Fault in Product Liability, 61 TEXAS L. REV. 777 (1983).
 

Abstract:
Although strict product liability purports to eschew the concept of fault by basing liability only on the presence or absence of a defect, courts in strict liability cases often inject negligence ideas into strict product liability claims. The confusion is understandable, because negligence ideas of fault have shown to be workable and have stood the test of time. Also, courts may be reluctant to impose liability on a defendant who has not done anything wrong. The problem of fault in strict product liability cases arises at three doctrinal points. First, courts often rely on negligence theories to determine whether a product is defective. Second, if multiple defendants are found to be liable, the apportionment of fault will determine how much each defendant is liable for. Third, proximate causation is often determined by using a foreseeability analysis. Prof. Powers argues that, although proximate causation and comparative allocation of liability may raise practical problems, they do not intrinsically insert fault into the analysis; however, the use of negligence doctrines to determine defectiveness does undermine the philosophical foundations of the law of strict product liability.