11 courts hold such companies to an expert standard of care. That is to say, a company that produces a product or places it into the stream of commerce is presumed to be fully informed of the data and science regarding its products and processes, including any hazards they may pose. As discussed in greater detail below, abundant evidence demonstrates that, in the case of major fossil fuel producers, this presumption of expertise is borne out by the evidence. Moreover, where a company or an industry was demonstrably on notice of potential hazards associated with its products, the question of whether those risks were foreseen or foreseeable is redundant. As detailed below, there is now abundant and compelling evidence that major fossil fuel producers received early and repeated warnings not only regarding the role of fossil fuels in climate change, but of many categories of potential harm that have now materialized for the Filipino petitioners and for growing classes of petitioners and plaintiffs around the world. Significantly, where the harm results from defects in the design, manufacture or construction of the product, and these defects rendered the product unreasonably dangerous to use, a majority of countries now apply a strict liability standard—meaning that the company or companies that produced the product or put it into the stream of commerce can be held legally responsible for harms caused by the product, regardless of fault. This standard is reflected in §402A of the Restatement (Third) of Torts. The basic approach set forth in the Restatements has now been followed in most jurisdictions worldwide, either through jurisprudence or legislation. 16 For example, Article 97 of the Consumer Act of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 7394) provides that "(a)ny Filipino or foreign manufacturer, producer and any importer shall be liable for redress, independently of fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects resulting from design, manufacture, construction, assembly and erection formulas and handling and making up, presentation or packing of their products, as well as for the insufficient or inadequate information on the use and hazards thereof" (italics supplied). As Justice Edgardo P. Cruz has observed, this rule on strict liability “is based on the premise that as between the consumer and the manufacturer, producer or importer, the latter is in a better position to prevent any danger or risk that the product may reasonably pose to end-users.” Accordingly, the injured consumer “needs only establish that the product is defective or unreasonably 16 For a discussion of the evolution of the standard, see Richard W. Wright, The Principles of Product Liability, in Symposium, Products Liability: Litigation Trends on the 10th Anniversary of the Third Restatement, 26 Rev. Litig. 1067 (2007), available online at: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/fac_schol/719.