COURT DECISIONS WHICH HAVE IMPOSED A STANDARD OF STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT UPON SELLERS OF DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS ARE REVIEWED, AND THE CONCEPTS OF COMPENSATION, RISK SPREADING, AND DETERRENCE ARE DISCUSSED. CLASS ACTION PROCEDURES AS DEFINED UNDER RULE 23 (FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1966) ARE EXPLAINED. RULE 23 WAS DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO PROMOTE JUDICIAL 'ECONOMIES OF TIME, EFFORT AND EXPENSE.' SEVERAL CASES DECIDED UNDER THIS PROCEDURE ARE REVIEWED. THE SUPREME COURT HAS UPHELD CLASS ACTION SUITS, MOST OF WHICH HAVE INVOLVED MONETARY DAMAGES. FEW SUITS HAVE SOUGHT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, ALTHOUGH THIS IS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE UNDER THE PROCEDURE. THE AVAILABILITY OF EQUITABLE RELIEF ALSO IS EXPLAINED. RULE 23 IS EXAMINED CLAUSE BY CLAUSE TO DEMONSTRATE THE FOLLOWING NECESSARY ELEMENTS FOR A CLASS ACTION SUIT: A CLASS OF DEFENDANTS SO NUMEROUS THAT JOINDER OF ALL IS IMPRACTICABLE; QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT COMMON TO THE CLASS; CLAIMS OR DEFENSES TYPICAL OF THE CLAIMS OF DEFENSES OF THE CLASS; AND ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION OF THE CLASS. SUITS WHICH FAILED BECAUSE THEY LACKED ONE OR MORE OF THESE ELEMENTS ARE SUMMARIZED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT A WELL PREPARED CLASS ACTION SUIT IS AN EFFECTIVE CONSUMER PROTECTION INSTRUMENT. THE ARTICLE CONTAINS NUMEROUS FOOTNOTES, ALONG WITH CASE CITATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS. (GLR)