Understanding the Basic Elements of a Strict Products Liability Claim

Our office represents clients who are injured by dangerous or defective products. It is important to understand why an injured plaintiff might sue on a claim of strict products liability, rather than just negligence. The reason is that for the tort of negligence, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant had a particular duty of care and that he breached that duty. This can often be costly and difficult. If a plaintiff can prove the elements of a strict liability claim, though, he does not have to prove the exact nature of this particular defendant’s duty and breach of duty.

Whether the product is a defective fire alarm system, car, toy, pharmaceutical product, or any other kind of manufactured product, there are several elements that are common to all strict products liability claims. There are five basic elements which an injured plaintiff must prove in a strict products liability case:

1. the product was in a defective condition when it left the defendant’s possession,
2. that the product was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury,
3. the product was being used in a foreseeable way when it injured the plaintiff,
4. the danger was not immediately apparent, and
5. that the injured party’s own negligence was not the cause of his own injuries.

There are three major types of defects which result in injuries:

1. manufacturing defects,
2. design defects, and
3. failure to warn.

• Manufacturing Defects: Manufacturing defects exist when the particular product was different from the other products produced by the defendant. Some mistake occurred when the product was manufactured and the resulting defect injured a foreseeable plaintiff.
• Design Defects: In these cases, the plaintiff shows that all of the products similar to the one which injured the plaintiff were defectively designed, making them prone to cause the type of injury suffered by the plaintiff.
• Failure to warn: This means that the manufacturer failed to place adequate warnings or instructions about the dangers and/or use of a product. This is a sub-category of the “defective design” category. This is because the failure to use an adequate warning constitutes a defective design compared to a product design which does include an adequate warning or instructions.

As noted above, the product must have been in its defective condition when it left the defendant’s possession. The corollary to this is that a plaintiff must prove that the product was not altered, other than in a foreseeable manner, after leaving the defendant’s possession. As long as the product remained in the ordinary chain of distribution, however, the law presumes that its condition was not altered absent evidence to the contrary.

An injured plaintiff may sue any business who had custody of the product during its path from production into the consumer’s hands. For instance, consider a product which was made by a manufacturer who sold it to a distributor who sold it to a retailer who sold it to the plaintiff. That plaintiff can sue the retailer, the distributor, and the manufacturer for the full amount of his or her injuries. If the claim is successful, the plaintiff can seek judgment for the full amount from any one of them and the one who pays can seek contribution from the others.

It is important to seek out the services of a competent personal injury attorney with experience in strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty claims.

Contact the Nassau and Suffolk Personal Injury lawyers Rosenberg & Gluck

The Long Island personal injury attorneys at Rosenberg & Gluck are experienced with all different types of product liability cases. Give us a call if you are injured by a dangerous or defective product or in any other way. Personal injury is all we do. For a free initial consultation, email us or call our office at 631-451-7900 .