Product Liability Claims
Strict product liability, now the law in nearly every
state, allows an action against a manufacturer that sells any defective
product resulting in injury to a buyer or anyone who uses it. If
you are injured by a defective product, you do not need to prove
that a manufacturer was negligent, but only that the product was
defective. A strict liability action can be brought against the
parties that designed, manufactured, sold or furnished the product.
It is possible for plaintiffs to recover punitive damages in strict
product liability actions, though such cases are relatively rare
and usually deal with outrageous conduct. Punitive damages are money
awards, which go beyond an award for other damages. Punitive damages
are intended to set an example and punish wrongdoers for intentional
and outrageous conduct with evil intent. Liability actions against
manufacturers for products that injure consumers also may be based
on negligence, a contractual breach of warranty or, sometimes, a
manufacturer's intentional wrongful conduct.
Our brand-new power mower backfired and injured me.
From whom may I recover damages?
This is a typical product liability case. You may be able to prove
that the manufacturer of the lawn mower made a defective product.
Most courts today hold companies responsible for a defective product
strictly liable to consumers and users for injuries caused by the
defect. The product may have had a design flaw or a manufacturing
defect. Another possibility may be that the producer or assembler
failed to provide adequate warning of a risk or hazard or failed
to provide adequate directions for a product's use.
A disclaimer that came with the lawn mower
said the manufacturer did not warrant it in any way. Will that defeat
our claim?
While limited warranties are sometimes enforced by courts, full
disclaimers often are not. Courts find such warranties invalid because
you, as the consumer, are not in an equal bargaining position. They
also rule that such clauses are unconscionable (grossly unfair)
and contrary to public policy. (See the discussion of "contracts
of adhesion" and unconscionability in the chapter on contracts
and consumer law.) Most courts limit the effect of limited warranties
to repairs. A limited warranty is not a waiver of liability for
injuries.
A toy my grandson was playing with came apart,
and he put one of the pieces in his mouth and started choking. Do
we have any redress against the toy manufacturer?
The manufacturers of toys are closely monitored by the federal Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC), but lawsuits against them are
abundant as well. Like others that put products into commerce, toy
manufacturers have a duty to consider any foreseeable misuse of
their products. As in any strict liability action, several questions
would need to be answered to determine the manufacturer's culpability.
Did it have a duty to warn of the danger of the toy falling apart?
If so, what was the likelihood that it would break into small parts
that could be dangerous to a small child? Did it make a difference
how the child was playing with the toy? Because toy manufacturers
outside of the U.S. can be difficult to sue, you also might want
to consider suing other parties in the toy's chain of distribution--the
toy store, for example, or perhaps a fast-food chain that distributed
the toy as part of a promotion. Such retailers also can be liable
for injuries.
I suffered a severe allergic reaction from
some cosmetics I used and needed medical treatment. May I recover
from the manufacturer?
Perhaps. Did the manufacturer warn you that the cosmetic could cause
such a reaction? Some courts normally will not hold the manufacturer
liable for failing to warn you of the risk of an adverse reaction
unless you can prove that an ingredient in the product would give
a number of people an adverse reaction. You also must prove that
the manufacturer knew or should have known this and that your reaction
was because you were in that group of sensitive people, and not
because you are hypersensitive. In addition, courts will determine
whether you used the product according to the directions provided
with it. Misuse is a defense recognized in strict liability. If
the court does not find strict liability, you still might recover
on a negligence claim.
My little boy contracted Reye's Syndrome after
I gave him children's aspirin for a respiratory ailment. Can we
recover?
Because of the known danger of contracting Reye's Syndrome when
a child takes aspirin, children's aspirin bottles contain warnings.
But in one California case, an appellate court said a jury should
decide whether a manufacturer was negligent in failing to supply
a Spanish-language warning of the hazards associated with aspirins.
The child's mother could only speak Spanish and was unable to read
the warning in English on the aspirin bottle. The case is now before
the California Supreme Court.
I got hepatitis from a blood transfusion.
Is someone liable?
In many states, laws protect suppliers against strict liability
when people who receive blood transfusions contract an illness from
contaminated blood. However, you may recover if you can show negligence
by the supplier.
I was injured because of a brake defect in
a used car I bought. May I recover from the dealer?
At least one used car dealer has been subject to a negligence action
for failing to inspect or discover such defects. But courts are
split on whether dealers in used goods should be subject to strict
liability. Holding them strictly liable appears to be a minority
position.
|
Home
| Attorney Bio | Free
Case Review | No Recovery No Fee Guarantee | Results | Contact
