Two views on security software liability: Let the legal system decide

IEEE Security and Privacy

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 70-72

  Ryan, Daniel J ^a,b  

^a Law Offices of Daniel J Ryan ^*  (United States)

^b GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DISCLAIM LIABILITY; INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEMS; SECURITY SOFTWARE LIABILITY;

COMPUTER CONTROL SYSTEMS; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; COSTS; ECONOMICS; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; PUBLIC POLICY;

SECURITY OF DATA;

EID: 3042744350     PISSN: 15407993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1109/MSECP.2003.1176999     Document Type: Review

References (10)

1. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_11/b3774071.htm.
2. UCC § 2-315 provides a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The fitness warranty is one of strict liability, although negligence is often present as well. One court stated, "... between strict liability under § 402A and warranty liability, the warranty predicate, fitness for ordinary purposes, appears to set a lower liability threshold that is more beneficial to the plaintiff. It also appears easier for the jury to understand and apply." Zacher v. Budd Co., 396 N.W.2d 122, 140; 1986 S.D. LEXIS 338; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. PI 1, 188 (5. D. 1986)
3. Comment m, Restatement of Torts (Second) § 402A.
4. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 24 Cal. 2d 453, 462; 150 P.2d 436, 440; 1944 Cal. LEXIS 248, (Cal. 1944)
5. Escola at 462.
6. The Restatement of Torts (Third), which has found less than universal acceptance among the States, takes the position that personal injury may not be disclaimed, but leaves open the question of the effectiveness of disclaimers for physical damage to property of for purely economic loss. § 18.
7. Of course, the courts do not recognize contractual limitations that are unconscionable, oppressive or unfair.
8. See, for example, Petry v. Cosmopolitan Spa Intern., 641 S.W.2d 202; 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 421 (Tenn. App. 1982)
9. Consider the reasoning in West v. Caterpillar Tractor, 336 So. 2d 80; 1976 Fla. LEXIS 4448; 24 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 1154 (Fla. 1976); Florida Steel Corp. v. Whiting Corp., 677 F. Supp. 1140; 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P11, 756 (M. D. Fla. 1988). While the issue was specifically personal injury, the reasoning could be applied more broadly to property and economic injuries, especially where other public policies support such application.
10. See Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal. 2d 9; 403 P.2d 145; 45 Cal. Rptr. 17; 1965 Cal. LEXIS 155; 2 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 915 (Cal. 1965)