<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>

<channel>
	<title>lawcritic</title>
	<link>http://www.lawcritic.com</link>
	<description>a blog of commentary on law and legal issues</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:32:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>

		<item>
		<title>Working Paper</title>
		<link>http://www.lawcritic.com/?p=12</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawcritic.com/?p=12#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:59:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Stostad</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Uncategorized</category>
	<category>Working Papers</category>
		<guid>http://www.lawcritic.com/?p=12</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[	I have posted Sub Silentio: The Rise and (Quiet) Fall of a Strict Products Liability Cause of Action for Design Defect in New York here.
	Here&#8217;s the abstract:
	The two causes of action for defectively designed products in New York, one for negligence and one for strict liability, have finally entirely merged—at least in the sense that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRSS>http://www.lawcritic.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=12</wfw:commentRSS>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

