The hazards posed by deteriorating friable asbestos in the nation’s schools are causing serious concerns for public health officials, school boards, parents and school employees. Reports by both the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Attorney General’s Office agree that both school children and school employees stand a substantially increased risk of contracting some form of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to deteriorating asbestos materials in school buildings.

School systems plagued by die asbestos hazards are now filing suits against asbestos manufacturers alleging causes of action in breach of warranty, negligence and strict products liability in tort. Some plaintiffs in school asbestos litigation seek to recover die costs of EPA-mandated asbestos inspection and abatement programs which have already been completed. Still others request injunctions to compel the manufacturers themselves to conduct inspections and finance abatement.

This Note examines the school asbestos situation from a legal perspective and focuses primarily on whether die schools’ claims should be considered as economic losses or as property damage. It examines die impact of statutes of limitations on these cases under both contract and tort theories. The Note argues diat school asbestos claims should be decided under a strict products liability standard.

Orphan drugs, essential for die treatment of persons widi rare diseases, generally are unprofitable for manufacturers to develop and market. While congressional and administrative efforts to promote die development of orphan drugs have met widi modest success, application of products liability doctrine to orphan drug sponsors could subvert those efforts. This Note describes die provisions of die Orphan Drug Act and analyzes products liability law with respect to orphan drug litigation. It argues that die goals of tort law support the imposition of liability for design defect, failure to warn and negligence in testing. Finally, die Note acknowledges diat liability costs create disincentives for orphan drug development and suggests mechanisms for reducing manufacturers’ liability concerns.