Any business that produces a physical product faces potential liability if the product turns out to be defective. Additionally, any business that uses a defective product may have a cause of action against the producer and/or seller of the defective product. Suits to recover damages resulting from defective products are collectively referred to as “products liability lawsuits.” Although products liability is governed by state law, state law in this area is fairly uniform, so whether or not liability exists is unlikely to vary from state to state.
In order for a manufacturer to be held liable for damages, a plaintiff must establish two things:
- The product was defective when it left the defendant’s control. A product is defective if it has some flaw which makes it unreasonably dangerous to users. If the defect arose after the product left the manufacturer’s control, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for the product’s defect.
- The defect gives rise to liability. The law provides several theories of liability, each requiring the plaintiff to establish different elements and each allowing different parties to be held liable.
The Defect Requirement
Before a party can be held liable for a defective product, the plaintiff must establish that the product was unreasonably dangerous. A product is considered defective if it falls into one of the four general categories of defective products. These categories are:
- Manufacturing Defect: When an ordinarily safe product is produced in a way that makes the product more dangerous than it should be if manufactured properly, the product is said to contain a manufacturing defect. For a manufacturing defect to be sufficient, the product must be more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect the product to be if it was properly manufactured.
- Defective Food: A food product is considered defective if the food is more dangerous than a consumer would ordinarily expect it to be. Any food product that is contaminated is likely to be considered defective. In most states, defective food products are actually treated as a subset of manufacturing defect cases and follow the same general rules.
- Design Defect: If products are manufactured in the intended way but still dangerous, the product may be considered to have a design defect. The test for a design defect is whether the products design makes it more dangerous than an ordinary user would expect. To establish a defective design, plaintiffs generally need to demonstrate that a reasonable alternative design would be safer while still also being economically feasible. Courts analyzing defective design claims consider a variety of factors including: (1) the product’s usefulness, (2) safer alternatives, (3) the likelihood of injury (4) seriousness of possible injuries, (5) how clear the danger is to a user of the product, and (6) whether the injury can be avoided if the product is used carefully.
- Inadequate warnings: If a product does not have a clear and complete warning of any dangers that are not clear to users, the product will be deemed defective for lack of adequate warnings. Whether the lack of a warning makes the product defective depends on the product, the apparent risks, and the likelihood of the product being used in a way that gives rise to the risk. In analyzing inadequate warning cases, courts generally consider the same factors as design defect cases.
Theories of Liability
Once a plaintiff demonstrates that a product is defective, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defect is sufficient to give rise to liability for the defect. In order to do this, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defect constitutes a breach under one of several legal theories. The law provides three possible theories of liability in product liability cases. These theories are:
- Negligence: Products liability suits claiming a defect constitutes negligence must satisfy the same requirements as a negligence plaintiff in any other area of the law. If a plaintiff sues under a negligence theory, the plaintiff can only collect from parties that were actually negligent. This means that if a distributer, dealer, or reseller of a product did not act in a negligent manner, the plaintiff cannot sue them. Ordinarily, this means the plaintiff will only be able to sue the manufacturer.
- Breach of Warranty: If a product’s defect constitutes the breach of an express or implied warranty, the plaintiff can sue for breach of that warranty. For more information on warranties, read the article in this series on sales warranties.
- Strict Liability: In cases where strict liability is applicable, defendants can be held liable even if the plaintiff cannot establish they were negligent. In a strict liability case, the plaintiff can successfully collect from the any party in the chain of distribution, meaning the plaintiff can sue the manufacturer, distributer, wholesaler, dealer, or other similar party, regardless of whether they were in any way responsible. Strict liability plaintiffs can recover for the same types of damages as negligence plaintiffs.
Negligence
To successfully establish a claim for negligence in a products liability suit, a plaintiff must demonstrate four things:
- That the plaintiff had a duty to take some action to insure the product was safe.
- That the presence of the defect was the result of the breach of that duty.
- That the defect was the actual and proximate cause of the injury.
- That the injury resulted in the damages the plaintiff now seeks. In products liability cases, damages are limited to personal injuries and property damages. A plaintiff cannot generally sue for “economic damages,” meaning a plaintiff cannot recover damages resulting from the fact that the product does not work as well as expected.
Because establishing these elements may be difficult, the law provides a shortcut. Under a rule known as “res ipsa loquitur”, if the plaintiff can demonstrate that the defect is one that does not usually occur unless the manufacturer was negligent, then negligence will be presumed.
Strict Liability
Because of its simplicity and the variety of parties that can be held liable in a strict liability suit, strict liability is the overwhelmingly most common theory of liability in products liability cases. In order for strict liability to apply, three facts must be present:
- Defendant must be a “commercial supplier”: Only parties who are actively involved in selling products of the type in question can be held liable under strict liability. Casual sellers, such as a person who sets up a lemonade stand at the side of the road during a garage sale, are deemed “casual sellers” and are not subject to strict liability. Manufacturers, retailers, and assemblers are all considered commercial suppliers.
- Must be a Product: Strict liability only applies to products. If the claim is for a defective service, strict liability cannot apply. On the margin, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between products and services. For example, buying drinks at a bar is considered a product (even though bars are considered a service industry) and blood transfusions are considered a service (even though the blood is itself a tangible item).
- Product is Unaltered: If a product is altered in any substantial way from the way in which it was when it left the defendant’s possession, the defendant cannot be held liable under strict liability.
One the requirements for applying strict liability are established, the plaintiff must then demonstrate that the defendant is actually strictly liable for the defect. A defendant will be held strictly liable for a defect if the plaintiff establishes three things:
- A Breach: Once the requirements of strict liability are met, demonstrating breach becomes fairly simple. The plaintiff must merely establish that the product had a defect when it left the defendant’s possession. Regardless of how the defect occurred or whether the defendant could have prevented it, the defendant will be considered in breach merely because the product was defecting when it left the defendant’s possession.
- Causation: The plaintiff must establish that the defect led to the harm the plaintiff complains of. A defective product that does not cause any harm does not give rise to a cause of action.
- Damages: The plaintiff must establish that as result of the breach, the product caused the damages in the amount the plaintiff is seeking.
Legal Disclaimer
This website provides information addressing legal topics of interest to the general reader. You should not consider this information designed or adequate to meet any of your particular legal needs, concerns or inquiries. You should consult with a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction appropriate to your legal situation to assess your situation and provide you with appropriate legal advice. A good starting point for finding a lawyer is to contact your state’s bar association.
This article is copyrighted by Knowledge Website, LLC – 2010