University of Kentucky

UKnowledge
Faculty Publications

College of Law

1-1-1987

Strict Liability for Chattel Leasing
Richard C. Ausness
University of Kentucky College of Law, rausness@uky.edu

Recommended Citation
Richard C. Ausness, Strict Liability for Chattel Leasing, 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 273 (1987).

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact UKnowledge@lsv.uky.edu.

ARTICLES
S TRICT LIABILITY F OR C HATTEL L EASINGt
R ichard C. Ausness*
Leasing has become an increasingly popular substitute f or outright purchases as a means o f acquiring products f or use. Few courts a nd commentators, however, have addressed the question o f whether the principles o f strict products liability which apply to sellers also apply to lessors. I n this Article, Professor Ausness reviews the historical basisfor imposing strict liability in tort on sellers a nd applies these rationales to five basic kinds o f lease transactions. H e concludes that strict liability should not apply when a product defect arises after the leased product is placed in the hands o f the lessee (as contrasted with the more typical case o f " manufacturing defects" which arise when the product is manufactured), nor when the leased product is a fixture attached to real property. I n such cases, the lessor should be held to a negligence standard o f liability. However, in a ll other cases, the rationalesfor imposing strict liability on sellers apply as well to lessors a nd support the imposition o f strict liability upon these lessors.

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I. Principles o f Bailment L aw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Gratuitous Bailments . .................. . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Mutual Benefit Bailments . .........................
II. Principles o f Implied Warranty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. The Common Law Implied Warranty o f Fitness. . . .
B. Warranties Under the Uniform Commercial C ode..
1. Restriction o f Code Warranties to S ales.........
2. Chattel Leases Treated as Analogous to a Sale. .
3. Policy-Oriented Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Limitations on Recovery for Breach o f Warranty . . .
I II. Strict Liability in T ort. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Historical Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Objections to Extending Strict Liability to Lease
Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Preemption by the Uniform Commercial C ode.. t *

274
276
277
282
284
285
286
287
289
294
295
298
298
300
300

Copyright © 1987, Richard C. Ausness.
Professor o f Law, University o f Kentucky. B.A., 1966, J.D., 1968, University o f Florida;
LL.M, 1973, Yale University.

273

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 273 1986-1987

274

IV.

V.

UNIVERSITY O F P ITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW

[Vol. 48:273

2. Section 402A Limited to Sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Requirements for Strict Liability . ..................
1. Defective Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. N o Substantial C hange. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. T he "Physical H arm" R equirement. . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Injection Into the Stream o f C ommerce. . . . . . . . .
a. Isolated Transactions . ......................
b. Supplying Products Incident to a Sale. . . . . . .
c. F inance Leases . ............................
D. Limitations on Liability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. C onduct o f t he P laintiff-Contributory
Negligence, Assumption o f R isk and M isuse....
2. Conduct o f A nother as a Superseding C ause. . . .
3. Disclaimers o f Liability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
When Should Strict Liability Apply to Chattel Leases? . .
A. Policy Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Leases t hat F unction as Substitutes for a Sale . .....
C. R eturn Leases . ....................................
D. Licenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Maintenance Leases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F. Finance Leases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

301
304
304
306
308
309
309
313
317
320
321
322
323
324
324
328
330
335
339
347
350

I NTRODUCTION

T he short-term leasing industry has grown rapidly i n t he last decade. F or example, presently, more t han 800,000 rental cars are in service, 1 a nd automobile leasing companies gross a t least $4 billion a year. 2 I n addition, between 5,000 a nd 7,000 rental centers in the
United States3 r ent everything from a rt t o zoot suits.4 Many consumers prefer short-term renting because i t is often cheaper t o lease rather than to buy a product t hat is used only infrequently.5
1. Houston, What's Denting Profits a t the Car Rental Counter, Bus. WK., May 6, 1985, at 126.
2. l d. About one half o f the short-term car rental business is done at airports. l d. Hertz,
Avis, National and Budget control the largest share o f the car rental business. Hertz has 1767 rental locations in the United States, Avis has 1204, National has 1069 and Budget has 1056. Boyer,
A irpon Rent-A-Car Bargains, FORTUNE, Feb. 4, 1985, a t 119, 120.
3. Dunn, A Recession Strategy: Renting Everything From TVs to Tractors, Bus. WK., Mar. 22,
1982, a t 95.
4. From A to Z You Can R ent It, CHANGING T iMES, Oct. 1981, a t 63, 63·64.
5. F or example, when a gardener needs to use a rotary tiller only a few days a year, it makes more sense to rent one for $25 a day than to purchase one for $400. Dunn, supra note 3, a t 98.

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 274 1986-1987

1987]

STRICT LIABILITY FOR CHATTEL LEASING

275

The long-term leasing business is also booming. Rentals brought in revenues o f $6.5 billion in 1982.6 M otor vehicles are the most popular item.7 Ten years ago, about ten percent o f all cars were leased; now perhaps half o f all new cars manufactured are on lease. 8 Most o f these 1.7 million vehicles are leased by government and corporate clients, b ut a t least ten percent are leased by private individuals. 9 I n addition, furniture, audio-visual equipment and home appliances are now frequently leased on a long-term basis. Long-term leasing by consumers is sometimes referred to as "lifestyle financing." Even though they may ultimately pay more,1O many high-income consumers use leasing as a way to live the good life based on monthly cash flow r ather than on savings o r n et worth. II
Many business enterprises now lease motor vehicles, office equipment and other products instead o f buying them outright. Credit requirements are often less rigorous for leasing than for financing the purchase o f a product. I n addition, leasing is sometimes superior to purchase in terms o f potential tax savings. Finally, since a lease obligation is n ot characterized as a debt, leasing instead o f buying can make a company's balance sheet look better.I2
As an increasing number o f consumers and businesses I3 engage in leasing, i t is necessary to determine the extent o f t he lessor's liabil6. Blyskal, A n Expensive Way to Borrow, FORBES, J uly 18, 1983, a t 126, 126.
7. Long-term leases can be either open-end o r closed-end. I n a n open-end o r finance lease, the lessor calculates the price he expects t o get when the leased article is sold after the expiration o f t he lease. This is known as the residual o r retained value. T he consumer must pay extra a t t he end o f t he lease i f the lessor does not obtain the expected residual value when he sells the leased article. On the other hand, the consumer may get a refund i f t he leased article is sold for more than its residual value. Look Before You Lease, CHANGING TIMES, Feb. 1985, a t 59, 60. Many business leases are o f t he open-end variety, b ut most consumer leases now tend to be closed-end leases. Id. a t 60-61. I n a closed-end, net o r walkaway lease, the lessee is n ot responsible for any additional payments a t the end o f t he lease period. McNatt, The New Economics o f Leasing, MONEY, Dec. 1984, a t 96, 97.
8. O'Donnell, Leveraged Lifestyles (Young Professionals as Lessors), FORBES, May 21, 1985, a t
~li

.

9. Blyskal, The Car Leasing Dream, FORBES, M ar. 14, 1983, a t 176, 176.
10. See Blyskal, supra note 6, a t 127; Look Before You Lease, supra note 7,.at 59.
11. F or example, a young white collar employee can lease a S27,000 Porsche for S380 a m onth as long as he o r she has a minimum debt-free income o f SI8,OOO a year. I f the consumer borrowed money t o purchase the c ar outright, he o r she would have to p ut u p a S5,4OO down payment. I n addition, the monthly loan payments would probably exceed the S380 monthly cost o f renting.
O'Donnell, supra n ote 8, a t 36. See also M cNatt, supra n ote 7, a t 102.
12. Henszey, Application o f Strict Liability to the Leasing Industry, 33 B us. LAW. 631, 631
(1978).
13. I n this Article, leases t o individuals for personal o r occasional business use will be referred t o as "consumer leases." The term "business lease" will be used in connection with leases by business entities.

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 275 1986-1987

276

UNIVERSITY O F PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW

[Vol. 48:273

ity for personal injuries to lessees and others. Three areas o f law are potentially applicable: bailment law, implied warranty, and strict liability in tort. This Article will evaluate each o f these legal regimes from the viewpoint of lessor liability. P art I focuses on the law o f bailments; P art I I is concerned with the principles o f implied warranty; and P art III examines the concept o f strict liability in tort.
Part IV examines a variety o f chattel leases, including sale substitutes, return leases, licenses, maintenance leases and finance leases, to determine where strict liability is appropriate. This Article concludes that strict liability in tort should not apply to some types o f licenses o r to maintenance leases. Instead, the lessor's duty in such cases is better expressed through negligence o r warranty law.
1.

P RINCIPLES OF B AILMENT L AW

The law o f bailments provides one set o f liability principles for lessors.14 U nder the traditional approach,15 the bailee is required to exercise only slight care where the bailment is for the benefit o f the bailor. 16 In the case o f a m utual benefit bailment, the bailee must
14. A bailment is defined as the "delivery o f personalty for the accomplishment o f some purpose upon a contract, express o r implied, t hat after the purpose has been fulfilled, it shall be redelivered to the person who delivered it, otherwise dealt with according to his directions o r kept until h e reclaims it." Smalich v. Westfall, 440 Pa. 409, 269 A.2d 476, 480 (1970). See also American Enka
Co. v. Wicaco Mach. Corp., 686 F.2d 1050, 1053 (3d Cir. 1982); Garfield v. F urniture Fair-Hanover,
113 N.J. Super. 509,274 A.2d 325, 326 (1971); Wright v. Sterling Land Co., 157 Pa. Super. 625, 43
A.2d 614, 615 (1945).
The word "bailment" is derived from the French term "bailler," which means " to deliver." See
Tashima v. People, 58 Colo. 98, 144 P . 200, 202 (1915); State v. Carr, 118 N.J.L. 233, 192 A. 36, 37
(1937); Hogan v. O'Brien, 123 Misc. 805,206 N.Y.S. 831, 833 (Sup. Ct. 1924); Rudolph v. Riverdale
Management, 202 Misc. 586,113 N.Y.S.2d 524, 529 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. 1952); Merritt v. Nationwide
Warehouse Co., 605 S.W.2d 250, 253 (Tenn. App. 1980); 2 W. BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES *451;
J. STORY, CoMMENTARIES ON THE LAW OF BAILMENTS § 2, a t 1 (5th ed. 1851).
A bailment requires: (1) an agreement by the parties to transfer possession o f personal property for a specified purpose; (2) actual delivery o r transfer o f actual possession o f t he property from the bailor to the bailee; and (3) acceptance o f exclusive possession by the bailee. Kirby v. Chicago City
Bank & T rust Co., 82 III. App. 3d 1113,403 N.E.2d 720, 723 (1980). I t may be established by express contract o r by implication. Id.; Berglund v. Roosevelt Univ., 18 Ill. App. 3d 842, 310
N.E.2d 773, 776 (1974). In the latter case, the court must consider the surrounding facts, such as benefits received by the parties, the parties' intentions, the kind o f property involved and the opportunity o f each party to exercise control over the property. Kirby, 403 N.E.2d a t 723; Berglund, 310
N.E.2d a t 776; Wall v. Airport Parking Co., 41 Ill. 2d 506, 244 N.E.2d 190, 192-93 (1969).
15. A number o f states have done away with these distinctions and impose a duty o f ordinary care on the bailee, regardless o f the nature o f the bailment. See 8 AM. JUR. 2 0 B ailments § 219
(1980). See also Kubli v. F irst Nat'l Bank, 199 Iowa 194, 200 N.W. 434, 436 (1924).
16. See, e.g., Thomas v. Hackney, 192 Ala. 27, 68 So. 296, 296 (1915); Maddock v. Riggs, 106
Kan. 808, 190 P. 12, 15 (1920); Hargis v. Spencer, 254 Ky. 297, 71 S.W.2d 666, 669 (1934); Cadwell

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 276 1986-1987

1987]

STRICT LIABILITY F OR CHATTEL LEASING

277

exercise ordinary care,I7 and great care is necessary when the bailment is exclusively for the bailee's benefit. IS
A similar approach is followed with respect to the duty o f care owed by a bailor to his bailee. I n t he case o f a gratuitous bailment, the bailor is merely required to warn the bailee o f latent defects known to h im a t the time the property left his possession.19 However, when a mutual benefit bailment is involved, the bailor must exercise ordinary care to ensure t hat t he bailed property is safe for its intended use. 20 This distinction rests on the notion t hat a bailor who receives no benefit from the bailment should not be required to p ut t he property into usable condition solely for the convenience o f t he bailee. A rguably, imposing such an obligation on the bailor would unduly restrict the transfer o f property by discouraging gratuitous loans. On the other hand, i t seems more appropriate to impose a greater duty on the bailor when both he and the bailee profit from the transaction. 21

A.

Gratuitous Bailments

P rior to the mid-nineteenth century, judges and commentators concentrated almost exclusively on the bailee's duty to protect the bailed property and paid little attention to the bailor's duty o f care. 22
T hat issue was not considered judicially until 1858 when the English
v. Peninsular State Bank, 195 Mich. 407, 162 N.W. 89, 91 (1917); Dalton v. Hamilton Hotel Operating Co., 242 N.Y. 481, 152 N.E. 268, 270 (1926).
17. See, e.g., Levasseur v. Field, 332 A.2d 765, 767 (Me. 1975); David v. Lose, 7 Ohio St. 2d
9 7,218 N .E.2d 442, 444 (1966); Insurance Co. o fN. Am. v. K rieck Furriers, Inc., 36 Wis. 2d 563,
153 N.W.2d 532, 535 (1967).
18. See, e.g., G lenn v. Blackman, 33 Ala. App. 571, 35 So. 2 d 698, 701, cert. denied, 250 Ala.
664, 35 So. 2d 702 (1948); Hall v. Osell, 102 Cal. App. 2d 849, 228 P.2d 293, 296 (1951); Raines v.
Rice, 65 G a. App. 68, 15 S.E.2d 246, 250 (1941); C arr v. Evans, 189 Mo. App. 282, 176 S.W. 298,
299 (1915).
19. See, e.g., Johnson v. H .M. Bullard Co., 95 Conn. 251, 111 A. 70 (1920); Butler v. Shirah,
154 Ga. App. 1 11,267 S.E.2d 647, 649 (1980); Gagnon v. D ana, 69 N .H. 264, 39 A. 982 (1896);
K napp v. G ould A uto Co., 252 A.D. 430, 299 N.Y.S. 688 (1937); Miller v. H and F ord Sales, Inc.,
216 Or. 567, 340 P.2d 181 (1959).
20. See, e.g., Milestone Sys., Inc. v. Gasior, 160 Md. 131, 152 A. 810, 812 (1931); Hilleary v.
Bromley, 146 Ohio St. 212, 64 N.E.2d 832, 835 (1946).
21. Hilleary, 64 N.E.2d a t 835.
22. Joseph Story, in his treatise on t he law o f bailments, declared t hat u nder Roman law a lender was obligated to inform t he b orrower o f defects in t he property loaned. According to Story,
" The g round o f this doctrine is, t hat when we lend we ought to confer a benefit, and not do a mischief." J. STORY, supra note 14, § 275, a t 287. Story also cited a hypothetical case from Roman sources where one who gratuitously lends another defective casks would be liable for harm to oil o r wine placed in them by t he borrower. ( "Qui sciens vasa vitiosa commodavit, s i i bi infusum vinun, vel oleum corruptum effusumve, condemnandus eo nomine est.") 2 CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS, Digest bk.
13, tit. 6, 1.18(3), a t 185 (S. Scott ed. 1973).

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 277 1986-1987

278

UNIVERSITY OF P ITISBURGH LAW REVIEW

[Vol. 48:273

c ourt o f Queen's Bench decided Blakemore v. Bristol & E xeter Railway C O.23 T he defendant in t hat case, a railroad, maintained a crane a t its station in Weston Super Mare to enable its customers to unload their goods. 24 T he plaintiff's husband, who was helping to unload a cargo o f stone, was killed when a chain gave way causing the crane's beam to strike him in the head. The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed.
Acknowledging the dearth o f authority on the subject,25 the court i n Blakemore invoked the principle o f correlative obligations enunciated by Lord Holt in Coggs v. Bernard. 26 I t then characterized
23. 120 Eng. Rep. 385 (K.B. 1858).
24. [d. a t 387. T he railroad had two rate schedules, tonnage and mileage. The railroad would unload the goods i f the customer paid the tonnage rate, but the customer was responsible for unloading the goods i f h e only paid the mileage rate. However, the railroad made its crane available a t no charge to those customers who elected to unload their own goods. [d.
25. T he court stated: " It is surprising how little in the way o f decision in o ur Courts is to be found in o ur books upon the obligations which the mere lender o f a chattel for use contracts toward the borrower." [d. a t 391.
26. The court in Blakemore declared:
I t may however, we think, be safely laid down that the duties o f the borrower and lender are in some degree correlative. The lender must be taken to lend for the purpose o f a beneficial use by the borrower; the borrower therefore is not responsible for reasonable wear and tear; but he is for negligence, for misuse, for gross want o f skill in the use, above al1, for any thing which may be qualified as legal fraud. So, on the other hand, as the lender lends for beneficial use, he must be responsible for defects in the chattel with reference t o the uses for which he knows the loan is accepted, o f which he is aware, and owing to which directly the borrower is injured.
[d.
These principles were first set forth in Coggs v. Bernard, 92 Eng. Rep. 107 (K.B. 1704), which is discussed in detail in Elliott, Degrees 0/ Negligence, 6 S. CAL. L. REV. 91, 107-10 (1933). The defendant in Coggs transported several casks o f brandy, belonging to the plaintiff, from one cellar to another. As the goods were being transferred one o f t he casks was staved and most o f t he brandy was lost. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's employees were responsible for the accident and the assize court agreed. The defendant moved in arrest o f judgment, arguing that as a gratuitous bailee he should not be have been held liable for mere negligence. 92 Eng. Rep. at 107. Nevertheless, Chief Justice Holt, speaking for the Court o f King's Bench, upheld the verdict. [d. a t 114.
Lord Holt declared t hat t he respective duties owed by bailor and bailee depended on the nature o f the bailment. Relying on the writings o f R oman jurists, Holt identified six types o f bailment: (1) depositum, (2) c ommodatum, (3) locatio et conductio, (4) pignori acceptum, (5) delivery o f chattels to be transported by the bailee, and (6) m andatum. [d. a t 109.
Depositum o r deposits are bailments o f personal property to be kept for the bailor without recompense and to be returned when the bailor shal1 require them. J. STORY, supra note 14, § 4;
Weinstein v. Sheer, 98 N.J.L. 511, 120 A. 679, 681 (1923). I n ordinary deposits, the bailee, in the absence o f a special undertaking to keep the goods as he would his own, is liable only for gross neglect. Coggs, 92 Eng. Rep. at 110-11.
Commodatum are bailments o f goods to be used gratuitously by the bailee temporarily o r for a certain time. Slack v. Bryan, 299 Ky. 132, 184 S.W.2d 873, 875-76 (1945); Viers v. Webb, 26 Mont.
38, 245 P. 257, 258 (1926); Lowney v. Knott, 83 R.I. 505, 120 A.2d 552, 554 (1956). In the case o f

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 278 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 279 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 280 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 281 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 282 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 283 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 284 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 285 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 286 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 287 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 288 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 289 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 290 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 291 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 292 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 293 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 294 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 295 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 296 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 297 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 298 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 299 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 300 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 301 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 302 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 303 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 304 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 305 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 306 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 307 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 308 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 309 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 310 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 311 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 312 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 313 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 314 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 315 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 316 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 317 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 318 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 319 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 320 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 321 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 322 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 323 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 324 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 325 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 326 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 327 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 328 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 329 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 330 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 331 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 332 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 333 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 334 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 335 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 336 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 337 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 338 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 339 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 340 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 341 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 342 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 343 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 344 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 345 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 346 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 347 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 348 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 349 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 350 1986-1987

HeinOnline -- 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 351 1986-1987