only a handful of cases in which products were made safer as a result of product liability litigation or the fear of it. With these few safety successes has come a flood of examples of companies and products being damaged by the system. Moreover, only a small portion of the total amount expended in a lawsuit—15 percent according to some sources—is actually getting to the victims of unsafe products. The rest is paid for attorneys and other litigation costs.

Many have come to the conclusion that the system does not work as intended. It is too expensive, too complicated, and it is jeopardizing American competitiveness. As a result, serious efforts have been made to change product liability law. In 1993 these efforts included reforms that would establish a statute of repose for general aviation aircraft. The irony of not having a statute of repose is that it unfairly penalizes the most quality-conscious manufacturers, since their products have a longer life in the market. This proposal, and others like it, contain elements of common sense that seem so absent in the current product liability system.

General aviation is one U.S. industry whose demise can be traced almost solely to the product liability burden it bears. The same insidious effects of product liability are being felt in varying degrees by manufacturers in other industries. Perhaps it is time to ask the question: What U.S. industries are we willing to sacrifice to our product liability system?