A Deeper Look at the Legal Theories Surrounding Product Liability
Product liability claims typically arise under one or more of the following legal theories.
Theories include:
- Strict Liability: Under strict product liability, a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer can be held liable for a defective product regardless of whether they exercised care in making or selling the product. The injured party must prove that the product was defective and that it led to injuries. Strict liability eliminates the need for the consumer to prove negligence.
- Negligence: In a negligence claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in designing or manufacturing the product. They may also claim negligence if the manufacturer fails to provide adequate warnings or instructions.
- Breach of Warranty: This theory applies when a product fails to meet the terms of an express or implied warranty. An express warranty is a specific promise made about a product’s quality or performance. An implied warranty assumes the product is generally safe for its intended use.
If you or your lawyer suspect any of these theories in your case, it could spark product liability litigation.
The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff in tort law, so you must work with an attorney to build a solid case for your damages.
Who Are the Liable Parties?
The primary reason why product liability cases are complicated is because of the involvement of multiple liable bodies.
Accurately determining the right defendant is crucial for a successful case.
More often than not, it’s not just one party.
Liable parties can include:
- Manufacturers
- Distributors
- Retailers
- Other potential parties
Manufacturers
The manufacturer is often the first party in the line of suspects.
Manufacturers must ensure that the product is designed and manufactured to meet industry safety standards, and can do this by performing regular testing and quality control.
Manufacturers are also liable to provide clear and adequate instructions for use and warnings about the potential risks of their products.
Distributors
Next to the manufacturers are the distributors. The distributors are responsible for ensuring that the products they handle are not altered or damaged during storage or transportation.
They may be held liable if they knowingly distribute defective or mislabeled products.
Retailers
Retailers are also among the suspected culprits in product liability claims.
This party is responsible for ensuring the products they sell are safe for consumer use.
Retailers are also responsible for inspecting products when feasible and removing defective products from their inventory.
They can be held liable for failing to warn consumers of known risks or defects.
Other Potential Parties
Aside from the primary three mentioned above, other potential parties may be liable in a product liability case.
Parties include:
- Suppliers of product parts
- Assemblers or installers
- Testing laboratories
- Advertising agencies
- Third-party providers
It’s essential to thoroughly investigate and identify all potentially responsible parties in a product liability case.
This investigation will ensure that all parties involved are held accountable for their actions, leading to proper compensation for the victim.
Three Main Types of Product Liability Claims
There are three primary types of product liability cases, namely design defects, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn (marketing defects).
Each type is distinct in how the defect originates, its impact on the product’s safety, and how liability is determined.
These claims are often identified through consumer reports, injuries, regulatory actions, or independent testing.
Types of product liability claims include:
- Design defects
- Manufacturing defects
- Failure to warn (marketing defects)
Design Defects
A design defect occurs when the inherent blueprint or plan of a product is flawed, making it dangerous even when manufactured and used as intended.
This defect affects the entire product line rather than an isolated batch.
In design defect cases, the product is inherently unsafe due to its design, even if it is manufactured perfectly.
The defect typically poses a foreseeable risk of harm to users.
Reports would usually show that safer alternative designs are available and feasible without significantly increasing costs.
In such cases, plaintiffs must show that the product was designed in a way that made it unreasonably dangerous.
Courts may apply the risk-utility test (weighing the risks against benefits) or the consumer expectation test (whether the product performs as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect).
Manufacturing Defects
Manufacturing defects occur when a product deviates from its intended design due to errors in production or assembly.
This defect typically affects a specific batch or unit rather than the entire product line.
In cases involving manufacturing defects, the defect often occurs during the production process.
The manufacturing flaw makes the product unsafe even though the design itself is sound.
When filing for manufacturing defect cases, the plaintiff must show that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s control.
Strict liability is often applied, meaning the plaintiff does not need to prove negligence, only that the defect existed and caused harm.
Failure to Warn (Marketing Defects)
A failure to warn claim, also called a marketing defect, arises when a product lacks adequate warnings or instructions about its risks or safe use.
Even a well-designed and manufactured product can cause harm if users are not properly informed about its dangers.
An issue with marketing defects is that the product is dangerous in ways that are not obvious to the user.
Regulatory bodies and courts often look at ways the manufacturer could have prevented the accident with sufficient warnings, clear instructions, and appropriate labeling.
Plaintiffs must prove that the lack of adequate warnings or instructions made the product unreasonably dangerous.
In turn, manufacturers must anticipate foreseeable misuse of their products and provide appropriate precautions.
How Are These Cases Identified?
Understanding the differences between design, manufacturing, and marketing defects is critical in identifying the type of claim and assigning liability.
Your lawyer could use several types of evidence to identify the type of product liability claim you could file and, eventually, the appropriate liable party.
Types of evidence includes:
- Consumer Reports: Patterns of consumer complaints often reveal recurring issues with certain products. For example, reviews and direct feedback on platforms like the CPSC’s database or private consumer groups can signal problems.
- Injuries: Emergency room visits and incident reports may point to a defect. High injury rates often prompt legal investigations or product recalls.
- Regulatory Actions: Government agencies like the CPSC, FDA, or National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) monitor products, investigate hazards, and take corrective action, such as recalls or warning updates.
- Independent Testing: Consumer advocacy organizations, such as Consumer Reports or Underwriters Laboratories (UL), conduct rigorous testing to assess product safety. Findings often lead to public awareness and legal scrutiny.
The Phases of a Product Liability Lawsuit
Filing a product liability lawsuit involves a structured legal process to establish that a defective product caused an injury and that the responsible parties are liable.
The particular process might differ from case to case.
The process can include:
- The pre-lawsuit phase
- Establishing the legal basis of the claim
- Filing the product liability lawsuit
- The discovery phase
- Settlement negotiations
- The trial phase
The Pre-Lawsuit Phase
Your chances of a successful case are determined even before you work with an attorney; it starts right after the accident occurs.
What you need to do and know about this stage includes:
- Preserving the Product: Retain the defective product in its post-incident condition, including any packaging, warnings, or instructions. Avoid altering the product, as this could compromise its value as evidence.
- Documenting the Incident: Take photographs or videos of the product, the injury, and the scene where the incident occurred. Record details about the product’s use, including time, location, and circumstances.
- Collecting Medical Records: Obtain medical records and bills documenting the injuries caused by the product. Include a physician’s report linking the injury to the product.
- Identifying Witnesses: Gather statements from individuals who witnessed the incident or the circumstances leading up to it.
- Researching Product History: Investigate if similar incidents involving the product have occurred (e.g., through consumer reports, regulatory filings, or recalls).
- Consulting Product Liability Lawyers: Product liability attorneys are legal professionals specializing in this area of tort law. They can help you assess the merits of your case, stand up against prominent companies, and recover maximum compensation for your damages.
Establishing the Legal Basis of the Claim
After filing the lawsuit, your lawyer will work with you to build your case.
Your lawyer will also help you identify the legal theory suitable for your situation.
This can include:
- Strict liability
- Negligence
- Breach of warranty
Your lawyer will thoroughly review your case and do extensive research on the defective product.
They may even engage product engineers, safety experts, or other specialists to analyze the product and provide opinions on its defectiveness.
Filing the Product Liability Lawsuit
The steps above set up the foundation of your lawsuit.
After hiring a product liability lawyer, here’s what you can expect moving forward:
- Drafting the Complaint: The complaint outlines the facts of the case, identifies the parties (manufacturer, distributor, retailer, etc.), and specifies the legal basis for the claim (e.g., strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty).
- Choosing the Court: File the case in the appropriate jurisdiction, typically where the injury occurred or where the defendant operates.
- Serving the Defendants: Provide formal notice of the lawsuit to all defendants, giving them an opportunity to respond.
The Discovery Phase
After filing, both sides engage in the discovery process to exchange evidence and information.
This phase usually starts the lawsuit process.
The court may use one or all of the following discovery techniques during the process:
- Interrogatories: Written questions to the other party.
- Depositions: Recorded testimony under oath from witnesses, experts, or parties involved.
- Document Requests: Requesting records such as production logs, safety testing reports, and internal communications.
Settlement Negotiations
Throughout the lawsuit, the defendant may offer to settle the case out of court.
Many product liability cases are resolved through settlements.
If the defendant chooses to take this route, they will pay the damages, but you will need to surrender your rights to pursue further legal actions for the injuries you sustained.
It’s best to heed your lawyer’s call about whether to accept their offer or proceed with the lawsuit.
The Trial Phase
If no settlement is reached, the case proceeds to trial.
Steps the plaintiff must take include:
- Present Evidence: Demonstrate the defect, injury, and causation using documents, witnesses, and expert testimony.
- Counter Defenses: Address potential defenses, such as claims that the plaintiff misused the product or assumed the risk of injury.
- Seek Damages: You may seek damages for your economic (monetary) and non-economic (emotional) damages. In severe cases, the court may give punitive damages on top of the aforementioned compensation.
- Appeals (if Applicable): If either party disagrees with the trial outcome, they may appeal the decision to a higher court. Appeals focus on legal errors made during the trial rather than re-examining the evidence.
Key Challenges in Product Liability Lawsuits
Product liability lawsuits pose unique challenges because of their nature.
Challenges include:
- Proving Causation: Demonstrating a clear link between the defect and the injury can be complex, especially if multiple factors contribute to the harm.
- Overcoming Defenses: Manufacturers may argue the product was misused or that the plaintiff ignored clear warnings.
- Establishing Liability for Multiple Parties: Involving manufacturers, distributors, and retailers can complicate liability.
Filing a product liability lawsuit is a meticulous process requiring extensive evidence and legal expertise.
It’s important to have a reliable and experienced lawyer by your side to ensure every step you take leads you to success.
Multidistrict Litigation in Product Liability Cases
Multidistrict litigation (MDL) is a legal procedure used in federal courts to consolidate multiple lawsuits that involve common questions of fact.
This procedure is crucial in efficiently managing complex cases involving products that cause widespread harm, such as defective pharmaceutical drugs or medical devices.
By consolidating similar cases, MDLs streamline the legal process, reduce duplication, and promote consistency in rulings.
The goal of MDL is to centralize cases for pretrial proceedings, such as discovery and motions while preserving the individual nature of each plaintiff’s case.
Centralization of cases in an MDL occurs under one judge in a chosen federal district court.
Once pretrial matters are resolved, cases may be returned to their original jurisdictions for trial, though many resolve through settlement.
The Process of Establishing an MDL
Forming an MDL begins with a request to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), a seven-judge panel authorized to transfer cases to a single federal district court.
Plaintiffs (or defendants) may submit a petition requesting the JPML to consolidate similar cases.
The JPML will assess if there are numerous individual lawsuits nationwide in federal courts with overlapping claims.
The panel reviews arguments from both sides and considers factors such as the number of cases, geographic distribution, and commonality of facts.
The JPML designates a federal district court and a judge to oversee the MDL if granted.
All cases are transferred to the designated court for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
What Happens in an MDL?
Once cases are centralized, the assigned judge oversees pretrial matters, including discovery, motions, and bellwether trials.
How MDLs usually go includes:
- Discovery: Discovery involves collecting evidence common to all cases, such as internal company documents, safety reports, regulatory filings, and expert testimony.
- Motions: Pretrial motions may address issues such as dismissals, summary judgments, or challenges to expert witnesses under Daubert standards.
- Bellwether Trials: The judge selects a few representative cases to proceed to trial. These trials help both parties evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their claims and may guide settlement negotiations.
- Settlement Resolution: It’s not uncommon for MDLs to dissolve through global settlements negotiated between the parties. Settlements may involve a compensation fund for plaintiffs, with payouts determined by factors such as the severity of injuries and the strength of individual claims.
- Return to Original Jurisdictions: If no settlement is reached, individual cases may be remanded to their original courts for trial.
Advantages of MDLs
MDLs provide numerous benefits for managing complex litigation, such as product liability cases.
Advantages include:
- Streamlined Process: Consolidating cases avoids repetitive discovery and reduces the burden on courts.
- Consistency: A single judge issues rulings on common issues, ensuring uniformity across cases.
- Resource Sharing: Plaintiffs and defendants share the cost and effort of gathering evidence and expert testimony.
- Facilitating Resolution: Bellwether trials and consolidated discovery often lead to quicker settlements.
- Judicial Economy: By handling similar cases in one court, MDLs reduce the strain on the judiciary.
MDLs vs. Individual Lawsuits: Which One Suits Your Situation Best?
Should you partake in the ongoing MDL or proceed with an individual lawsuit?
Every plaintiff dealing with a product liability lawsuit deals with this dilemma at the start of their case.
The best answer here is to trust your lawyer’s decision — they know the nitty-gritty of each process and understand the benefits and consequences you might face with your decision.
If you want to see it for yourself first before consulting a lawyer, we’ve outlined the differences, benefits, and disadvantages of each option for you.
Scope and Definition
MDLs consolidate multiple cases with common issues of fact.
These cases often involve widespread harm, such as defective drugs, medical devices, or consumer products.
In contrast, individual lawsuits are standalone cases brought by a single plaintiff against a defendant.
Individual lawsuits are suitable for cases with unique circumstances, isolated incidents, or localized issues.
Efficiency and Process
MDLs streamline pretrial proceedings, such as discovery and motions, by handling them collectively under one judge.
This approach reduces duplication and creates uniformity.
In individual lawsuits, each case proceeds independently, with the plaintiff managing their own evidence collection, motions, and trial.
The case is tailored to the specific circumstances and is resolved in the plaintiff’s chosen jurisdiction.
Costs
MDLs are cost-effective for plaintiffs because discovery and expert witnesses are shared among many cases.
Participating plaintiffs benefit from the collective legal representation and pooled resources.
Legal costs are higher in individual cases because the plaintiff bears the full burden of discovery, expert testimony, and trial preparation.
These costs may be justified if the case has unique or highly specific elements that don’t align with broader claims.
Settlements and Resolutions
MDLs encourage global settlements that resolve many cases at once.
In turn, these settlement amounts may follow structured guidelines based on injury severity and other factors.
Settlements or verdicts for individual lawsuits are tailored specifically to the plaintiff’s situation.
Plaintiffs may expect higher payouts in cases involving egregious negligence or unique damages.
Plaintiff Autonomy
Plaintiffs benefit from shared legal resources but may have less control over litigation strategy in an MDL.
Decisions on discovery, bellwether trials, and settlements often prioritize the collective good over individual cases.
In individual lawsuits, plaintiffs retain full control over their case, including the choice of attorney, jurisdiction, and trial strategy.
This approach is ideal for plaintiffs who want to pursue a highly individualized outcome.
Real-Life Examples of Product Liability Litigation
Since 2022, Bard Access Systems Inc. has been facing product liability lawsuits for their Bard PowerPort devices.
These devices are designed to help with vascular access and medicine delivery.
However, countless similar instances of the device fracturing and migrating, causing severe medical conditions like deep vein thrombosis and necrosis, have been filed nationwide.
These constant similar scenarios prompted the JPML to consolidate parallel cases and centralize them into an MDL.
The JPML chose cases with similar nature and complaints to join the MDL.
On the other hand, there have been numerous cases of exploding pressure cookers inflicting severe injuries to thousands of users, but there are no MDLs being initiated.
Because there’s no particular brand where these cases occur, an MDL is not a viable option.
Too many brands are under fire for their substandard pressure cookers.
Another factor that could explain the lack of an MDL is the variation of injuries.
The instances of how the pressure cooker exploded are different for most cases.
How Product Liability Lawyers Assist Those Injured by Defective Products
When a defective product injures someone, a product liability lawyer plays a critical role in helping them navigate the legal process to secure fair compensation.
The role of product liability lawyers includes:
- Assessing the Viability of the Claim: A product liability lawyer helps assess the merits and viability of a case. They determine if the injury is linked to a design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn.
- Exploring Legal Theories: Lawyers identify whether to pursue a claim under negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty.
- Documenting the Defect: Attorneys help clients preserve the defective product and its packaging to serve as key evidence.
- Investigating Product History: Lawyers examine the manufacturing process, product design records, and quality control procedures.
- Working with Expert Witnesses: Experts may reconstruct the incident or testify on how the defect caused the injury and whether the product violated safety standards.
- Assessing Damages: Attorneys document all financial losses, such as medical bills, lost wages, and out-of-pocket expenses related to the injury. These experts also evaluate non-economic damages like pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of quality of life.
- Addressing Punitive Damages: If the manufacturer’s conduct is found to be particularly egregious (e.g., knowingly selling a defective product), lawyers may seek punitive damages to punish and deter similar behavior.
From evaluating the case and gathering critical evidence to guiding clients through the legal process and advocating for fair compensation, their expertise ensures that manufacturers and other parties are held accountable for the harm caused by defective products.
TorHoerman Law: Talk to Our Product Liability Attorneys Today
Dealing with product liability cases is overwhelming, especially when you’re up against prominent companies with vast resources.
At TorHoerman Law, our experienced product liability attorneys are dedicated to helping victims of defective products obtain the justice and compensation they deserve.
Call us now to book your free initial consultation.
We’ll review your case, answer any questions you may have, and discuss the best legal options available to you.
You can also use the chatbot on this page for a quick evaluation.
