Product Liability Attorney
The Plaintiff’s Burden in a Dangerous or Defective Product Personal Injury Case
The personal injury plaintiff still has a challenge although products liability law has evolved over the years. At one time “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware) was the standard to which manufacturers were held. Today “strict liability” is imposed in appropriate cases. Under this standard manufacturers are responsible for injuries caused by their defective or unreasonably dangerous products even if they were not negligent. In a products liability action, the injured person, or plaintiff, must prove, for instance, that there was a design or manufacturing defect in the product or that the manufacturer did not adequately warn consumers about the product’s possible dangers. In addition, he or she must establish, through relevant and credible evidence, that the product caused the injuries and that he or she was using the product in the way it was intended to be used or even that the manufacturer should have anticipated that the product would be “misused” in the way that it was.
Manufacturing defects are usually easier to prove than design defects. If a particular consumer’s gas fireplace explodes when first lit, for example, it is evidence that the fireplace was not manufactured as the designer intended it to be. A design-defect case, on the other hand, could arise if many or all fireplaces of a manufacturer’s particular model posed a threat of explosion. Proving a design defect involves passing judgment on technical choices and usually requires expert testimony. In a design defect case, the product may have been manufactured as it was intended to be, but the design was inadequately planned in such a way as to pose unreasonable hazards to consumers.
Proving causation in a products liability case can be tricky. The plaintiff must establish that the product was defective when it left the hands of the defendant manufacturer, distributor, or seller, and that the defect was the cause of the accident that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. If the injuries could have arisen from several potential causes, the plaintiff usually must establish that the product defect had a substantial role in bringing about the injuries.
Bases of Recovery in a Dangerous or Defective Product Personal Injury Case
The following are some possible legal theories that can be argued in a products liability case.
- Negligence. Negligence is a lack of reasonable care in the manufacture or sale of the product or in warning about the product
- Breach of warranty. Breach of warranty is failure to fulfill the terms of a promise regarding the product’s performance
- Misrepresentation. Giving consumers a false sense of security about a product’s safety is a type of misrepresentation.
- Strict liability. Where the product’s defect, although not the fault of the defendant, rendered the product unreasonably dangerous, the defendant is therefore responsible under the theory of strict liability
Although there is no limit to the list of products that could form the basis of a products liability suit, some of the more common product categories include apparel, asbestos, chemicals, cosmetics, firearms, food, machinery and tools, medical products and devices, motor vehicles, pharmaceutical products, recreational products, and tobacco.
Persons injured by dangerous or defective products need the counsel of skilled veterans of personal injury and products liability law to advise them on the complexities of their case and guide them through the legal system toward the most favorable outcome. If you or someone you know has suffered personal injuries as a result of using a dangerous or defective product, an experienced and knowledgeable personal injury lawyer at our firm can advise you on whether you may have a claim against the product manufacturer or seller and can help you recover the maximum damages recoverable under the applicable law.