The Story Of Our Firm | En Español
 Home    Lawyers   Litigation   Choose Us   Settlements   Search

Accidents Injuries Dangerous Products

Frequently Asked Questions

in this section: Learn More | News & Warnings | Frequently Asked Questions


Bookmark This Page Print This Page Email This Page

Get Specifics of Product Liability Laws and a Free Legal Evaluation

Get answers to frequently asked questions on dangerous products and liability laws. For a free case review, fill out this simple form today.

What is product liability?

Product liability encompasses a number of legal claims that allow an injured party to recover financial compensation from the manufacturer or seller of a product. In the United States, the claims most commonly associated with product liability are strict products liability, breach of warranty, and various claims. The majority of product liability laws are determined at the state level and vary widely from state to state. Each type of product liability claim requires different elements to be proven to present a successful claim.

return to top

What is 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 (Click link for more info and facts about negligence per se) negligence per se (using a manufacturer's violation of a law or regulation in place of proof of a duty and a breach) and (A rule of evidence whereby the negligence of an alleged wrongdoer can be inferred from the fact that the accident happened) 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.

return to top

What is product liability and strict liability?

Rather than focus on the bahavior 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).

Of the various U.S. states, (A state in the western United States on the Pacific; the 3rd largest state; known for earthquakes) California was the first to adopt the doctrine of strict liability for products, in 1964 (under the guidance of Chief Justice (Click link for more info and facts about Roger Traynor) Roger Traynor). Although the (Click link for more info and facts about Supreme Court of California) Supreme Court of California has since become more conservative, it continues to endorse and expand the doctrine; in 2002 it held that strict liability for defective products even applies to makers of component products that are installed into and sold as part of (Property consisting of houses and land) real property.

return to top

What is product liability and breach of warranty?

Warranties are statements by a manufacturer or seller concerning a product during a commercial transaction. Unlike negligence claims, which focus on the manufacturer's conduct, or strict liability claims, which focus on the condition of the product, warranty claims focus on how these issues relate to a commercial transaction. Warranty claims commonly require (Click link for more info and facts about privity) privity between the injured party and the manufacturer or seller. Breach of warranty based product liability claims usually focus on one of three types: (1) breach of an express warranty, (2) breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, and (3) breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Additionally, claims involving real estate may also take the form of an implied warranty of habitability. Express warranty claims focus on express statements by the manufacturer or the seller concerning the product (e.g., "This chainsaw is useful to cut turkeys"). The various implied warranties cover those expectations common to all products (e.g., that a tool is not unreasonably dangerous when used for its proper purpose), unless speifically disclaimed by the manufacturer or the seller.

return to top

Click To Talk To Us Online

Please complete the following questionnaire:

First Name:
Last Name: *
Home Phone: *
Work Phone:
Best time to call:
City and State:
Email:
What was the product in question?
When were you injured by the product?
Additional Comments:


see also:

Learn More Nuances of a Product Liability Case--Free Legal Review From a Lawyer
Lawyers: Product liability is a serious issue that can cost lives

News & Warnings Product Liability in the News--Free Case Evaluation and Lawsuit Info
News on Product Liability Cases and Verdicts--Free Lawyer Review

Research Center When a product fails: Moving forward with a liability lawsuit
Get a free legal review of your product liability claim--lawsuit info

Free Legal Review:
Name:
Phone:
Email:
Case Description:



For legal help anywhere in the U.S.
Ask a Free Question:
Were you injured?

check for your response [login]
$53 million verdict — brake mechanic suffering from mesothelioma

$13.5 million verdict — one of the very first Vioxx trial cases

$15 million settlement — man wound up a paraplegic due to negligent hospital care

$37 million verdict — 2 asbestos lung cancer plaintiffs

$47 million verdict — boilermaker who died from mesothelioma

$2.6 million settlement — ill-fitting prosthesis caused decubitus ulcers

$75 million verdict — historic consolidated trial involving men who had worked at the Brooklyn Navy Yard in the 1940s and 1950s

$12.7 million verdict — iron worker who was injured due to unsafe working conditions

$8 million settlement — obstetrical malpractice resulted in neurological deficits

$64.65 million award — 4 asbestos plaintiffs

$17.5 million — consolidated trial of 5 mesothelioma victims