Use this form to email Tim Bowden.Bookmark This Page
| InterTran (tm) |
|
|
| Product Liability Product liability and negligence A basic negligence claim consists of proof of (1) a
duty owed on the part of the manufacturer, (2) a breach of that
duty, (3) that the breach caused the plaintiff's injury, and (4) an
injury. A products liability negligence claim usually falls into one
of three possible types: those claiming a design defect, a
manufacturing defect, or a failure to warn. Over time, several other
negligence concepts have arisen to deal with certain specific
situations, including negligence per se (using a manufacturer's
violation of a law or regulation in place of proof of a duty and a
breach) and res ipsa loquitur (an inference of negligence under
certain conditions). The difficulties of an injured customer to
prove what a manufacturer did or did not do during the design or
manufacture of product has led to the development of newer product
liability claims such as strict liability. Product liability and strict liability Rather than focus on the behavior of the manufacturer
(as in negligence), strict liability claims focus on the product
itself. The basic component of a strict liability claim is proof
that the product is defective or unreasonably dangerous. Similar to
negligence claims, strict liability claims may attack a product's
design, manufacture, or warnings. The various U.S. states have
employed numerous ways to determine a product's defectiveness. Most
of the tests used to determine defectiveness include concepts such
as consumer expectations (consumer expectations test), a balancing
of the product's risk and its utility (Risk-Utility Test), the
obviousness of the danger (Open and Obivous Danger Rule), the
existence of a safer design alternative (Feasible/Reasonable Design
Alternative), the sophistication of the product's user
(Sophisticated User Doctrine), and existence of knowledgeable
intermediaries between the manufacturer and the user (Learned
Intermediary Doctrine). Strict liability for defective products has often been
criticized as an extremely harsh doctrine which imposes high
liability costs upon manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and
anyone else in the chain of commerce whom it attaches to. It is one
of the primary reasons for why warning labels have become so
ubiquitous on modern products. Regardless, it has become the overwhelming majority
rule in the United States, due to the widespread agreement that it
is the only way to ensure that such parties will always take all
reasonable measures to protect the consumer (because they know they
will always be liable for any harm caused). Otherwise, entire industries could escape liability
for egregious tortious conduct, by simply establishing an
industry-wide level of "due care" that somehow happens to result in
unconscionable injury to a large number of consumers. Such consumers
would then have no recourse in negligence because of its requirement
that the plaintiff show that the defendant breached the duty of due
care.
Bookmark This Page Disclaimer. No information or materials posted here are intended to
constitute legal advice, nor can we guarantee the accuracy of posted information,
especially as to each individual situation. We do not independently check the
information contained herein and does not refer or endorse any product, service, or firm.
This site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship; local counsel should always
be consulted. |