Strict Product Liability

If an individual is harmed by a purchased device or product, damages may be recovered under strict product liability. The plaintiff, however, must be able to prove several things in order to prevail in suit against a distributor, manufacturer, or retailer. Generally, the product must have been “in an unreasonably dangerous condition” at the time of sale and intended to reach the consumer without any alteration.  Moreover, the injury suffered must be a direct result of the flawed product itself.

Defects are not all created equal.  A plaintiff may bring a cause of action for either a manufacturing or design defect.  Generally speaking, in cases involving a  “manufacturing defect” only some products in the line of distribution will have been affected. The defect, for example, may have resulted from a malfunction in factory production. A design defect, on the other hand, which is integral to the product’s structure, usually affects the entire line of the inventory, making each device dangerously defective.

Product liability can also be proven if a manufacturer does not provide adequate warning regarding a product’s use. If the risk posed to the consumer is not patently obvious, the manufacturer is required to provide an understandable notice of warning to the customer. For an injured individual to win such a case, his or her injury must have resulted from the lack of warning or direction that could have prevented the injury sustained.

If a plaintiff’s injury results from that person’s misuse of the product or his or her own negligence, that individual cannot prevail under the theory that the design or manufacture of the product was defective.

If an individual has been injured by a defective product, or because there was no evident warning of some dangerous aspect of the product’s assemblage or use, a case of product liability may be brought. When considering whether to file a product liability lawsuit, an attorney specializing in the field should be consulted to assess whether the injured party has a viable case.