Most of the cases included manufacturers as defendants; wholesalers and retailers in the chain of distribution were much less frequently involved. Plaintiffs were predominantly product users or employees, in contrast to bystanders, spouses, and business owners. The dominant defect considered in court opinions related to design deficiencies, although failure to warn before product distribution was also considered frequently. The most common harm suffered by plaintiffs was severe personal injury. Many cases were resolved after product reform or tort reform statutes. The existence of a comparative negligence regime increased the tendency of appellate courts to affirm lower courts. Overall, the findings do not support a simple model in which pre- and posttrial settlement behavior filters out cases in which results are clear. Under such a model, only a residue of close cases remains, with no clear reason to expect results highly favorable to either product liability plaintiffs or defendants. The statutory environment of product liability is discussed, along with plaintiff and defendant characteristics and the relative importance of multiple factors in determining success on appeal. 24 footnotes and 11 tables