[ad_1]
Product liability laws require companies to protect consumers from harm, even if caused by consumer negligence. Lawsuits can be based on design flaws, manufacturing defects, or failure to warn of hazards. Modern laws hold manufacturers strictly liable for product safety.
Product liability laws vary from state to state, but the basic premise is that companies have a duty to protect consumers from potential harm, even if the harm is caused primarily by consumer negligence or deliberate misuse. Courts have held that manufacturers generally have more innate knowledge of their products, so it is up to them to bear financial responsibility for injuries and property damage.
In order to provide a short and direct explanation of product liability, it can be helpful to create a typical scenario involving a potentially defective product and the law.
In 2005, Joe WiseGEEK bought a bottle of Glug Cola from a local convenience store. For reasons known only to himself, Joe decided to shake the bottle vigorously. Moments later, the bottle exploded, causing shards of glass to pierce Joe’s hand and face. Joe spent several days in the hospital, followed by weeks of nerve damage rehabilitation. Today, Joe and his attorney are considering filing a product liability lawsuit against the makers of Glug Cola. They argue that Glug Cola failed to warn consumers of the dangers of shaking their product before opening.
Product liability cases generally fall along three separate lines. The first consideration is a design flaw. Was there something inherently dangerous about the design of the bottles used by Glug Cola to package their product? Product responsibility starts with the very first component suppliers, which in this scenario would be the bottle and cap manufacturers. Joe’s attorney would have to prove that the bottles were too thin to hold a carbonated drink and that the Glug Cola company was aware of this problem and did nothing to correct it. Product liability lawsuits claiming design defects are notoriously difficult to prove, since many companies spend months or years testing their designs before releasing the product to the public.
Joe WiseGEEK’s case could also be considered manufacturing liability. The bottle design may have been acceptable, but the Glug Cola bottling plant used too much carbonated water in the supply lines. Many product liability lawsuits center on actual defects caused by poor manufacturing practices or lack of quality control. The plaintiff’s attorney should provide expert testimony about the proper construction of a product and compare it to the defective product that caused the injury or damage. In Joe’s case, it should demonstrate that the carbonation level of Joe’s Glug Cola was significantly higher than industry standards. This would be highly unlikely in our scenario, but many product liability cases are won based on manufacturing defects.
The third line of reasoning involving product liability is called “failure to report.” Companies have an obligation to warn consumers of the known hazards and dangers surrounding the normal, or even abnormal, use of their products. The usual solution is a warning label placed in a prominent area on the product or accompanying literature describing the known hazards. This is why consumers may notice Caution: Hot Beverage warnings on coffee cups or human-no-consumable labels on many inedible products. Some of these warnings may seem unnecessarily obvious, but their presence helps companies defend against petty product liability claims. In many states, if the plaintiff is found liable for even one percent for the original accident, the company cannot be held entirely at fault.
In the case of Joe WiseGEEK v. Glug Cola, his attorney can argue that Glug Cola failed to warn consumers of the dangers of shaking the product. Even though Joe’s own actions appear to have contributed to the incident, some states would allow the argument that Glug Cola should have included a no-shake notice on the bottle. The court could order Glug Cola to redesign their bottles to prevent future Joe WiseGEEKs from being hurt.
Had Joe WiseGEEK been injured in 1945 instead of 2005, his legal options against Glug Cola would have been very different. Product liability laws of that era generally favored producers, not consumers. If Joe shook the bottle and it exploded, Glug Cola may have offered to pay his medical bills privately or the courts may have held him fully responsible for his actions. Modern Laws Product liability laws enacted in the 1960s operate on the principle of “strict liability,” meaning that manufacturers bear much more responsibility for the safety of their products, even if some consumers use the product irresponsibly.
