Liability effects on the economic performance of the pharmaceutical industry play a prominent role in the debate about the economic effects of product liability in the United States. The author analyzes incentive effects on company decisions, implications for economic outcomes such as drug safety and effectiveness, and suggests how public policy changes could mitigate liability-based sources of inefficient decisions of pharmaceutical companies.

With an ever-increasing number of liability lawsuits, are corporations electing to play it safe rather than risk the uncertainties accompanying innovation? In The Liability Maze experts address the issues surrounding safety and innovation and present the most detailed and comprehensive study to date on the actual impact of U.S. liability law. In recent decades it has been widely assumed that liability laws promote safety by significantly raising the price companies must pay for negligence, product defects and accidents. More recently, others have suggested that the broad and unpredictable sweep of these laws actually deters innovation. The risks of lawsuits are so great that corporations are showing more caution in product innovation than ever before. The contributors focus on five sectors of the economy where the liability system appears to have had the greatest effects, positive or negative: the private aircraft, automobile, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries, and the medical profession. They suggest that in many sectors liability law has hampered innovation. In others it has stimulated safety improvements, although perhaps not so much as vigilant safety regulations.

Many controversies and policy issues surround the U.S. tort system, which holds parties liable for injuries to people or property. Critics charge that the system is costly and inefficient, arbitrary and open to abuse, and indirectly harmful through its adverse effects on economic vitality and consumers' choices. In contrast, defenders argue that the tort system serves important social objectives, such as compensating injury victims, improving product safety, and punishing egregious behavior. Several bills now before the Congress propose to change the rules that govern tort claims for medical malpractice and asbestos exposure and claims litigated as class actions. This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study-prepared at the request of the Senate Budget Committee-attempts to clarify the issues and policy options surrounding the tort system by presenting an economic perspective on tort liability. The study outlines the strengths and weaknesses of tort liability as a tool for promoting economic efficiency and fairness, discusses the available data on the benefits and costs of the tort system, and analyzes in qualitative terms the likely effects of various policy options for altering the system. In keeping with CBO's mandate to provide objective, impartial analysis, this study makes no recommendations.

Many controversies surround the U.S. tort system, which holds parties liable for injuries to people or property. Critics charge that the system is costly and inefficient, arbitrary and open to abuse, and indirectly harmful through its adverse effects on econ. vitality and consumers' choices. Defenders argue that the tort system serves important social objectives, such as compensating injury victims, improving product safety, and punishing egregious behavior. This study presents an economic perspective on tort liability (TL). It outlines the strengths and weaknesses of TL as a tool for promoting economic efficiency and fairness, discusses the benefits and costs of the tort system, and analyzes the likely effects of various policy options for altering the system.