The text you've quoted is from the "Restatement (Third) of the Law of Torts: Products Liability". That's not the actual law – that's a "Restatement" published b

The text you've quoted is from the "Restatement (Third) of the Law of Torts: Products Liability". That's not the actual law – that's a "Restatement" published by the American Law Institute (ALI), a body dominated by law professors, but also including some judges and practising lawyers among its membership. It is their summary of what they think the law is, mixed (in some cases) with their opinions on what the law ought to be. It is also trying to distill common general principles from the laws of all US states, so whatever it says may not be true in all states. They've found it helpful to have a section specific to prescription drugs and medical devices – but that doesn't mean that the fundamental legal principles regarding them are different from those applying to other products. Courts in the US frequently accept the ALI's "Restatements" as persuasive but not binding, and when they conflict with statute or relevant case law, the later takes precedence. You appear to be claiming that "strict liability" is something specific to industrial and medical products – but under the law of many US states, "strict liability" applies to design defects in all products. In fact, in the case of Brown v. Superior Court, 44 Cal. 3d 1049, 245 Cal. Rptr. 412, 751 P.2d 470 (1988) [0], the Supreme Court of California concluded that the the "strict liability" standard which applies to design defects in ordinary products should not apply to prescription drugs, because it threatened to increase the expense and risk of new drug development to the point that it might discourage it, thereby harming public health. A number of subsequent decisions, including Hufft v. Horowitz, 4 Cal.App.4th 8 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) [1], extended that ruling to implantable medical devices. So, contrary to your assertions that medical devices are under some special legal regime which is stricter than that applicable to ordinary products, California product liability law is actually (at least in this regard) weaker for prescription drugs and (implantable) medical devices than for consumer goods, since it exempts them from one of the product liability rules which apply to almost every other category of goods. [0] https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-superior-court-5 https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-superior-court-5 [1] https://casetext.com/case/hufft-v-horowitz https://casetext.com/case/hufft-v-horowitz