• Personal Injury Attorneys
• Personal Injury
• Auto Accident
• Class Action
• Debt Harassment
• Insurance Disputes
• Investment Fraud
• Labor Laws
• Maritime Admiralty
• Mass Torts
• Medical Malpractice
• Mesothelioma
• Nursing Home
• Overtime Law
• Product Liability
  • Accutane
  • Bausch & Lomb
  • Claims
  • Damages
  • Duty of Care
  • Ephedra
  • Factual Causation
  • Firestone Recall
  • Guidant Recall
  • Liability Examples
  • Medline Recall
  • Negligence
  • Ortho Evra
  • Pfizer Neurontin
  • PPA
  • Prempro
  • Propulsid
  • Punitive Damages
  • Responsible Parties
  • Rezulin
  • Risperdal
  • Special Damages
  • Welding Rod
• Sinkholes
• Social Security
• Spinal Cord Injury
• Trucking Accident
• Workers' Compensation
• Wrongful Death

First Name:

Last Name:

Telephone:

Email:

Zip Code:

Incident Details:

Yes, I would like to receive
the Morgan & Morgan newsletter.

Examples of Product Liability

Product liability law refers to the liability of manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and vendors when personal harm or destruction of property is caused by dangerous or defective products. Product liability legislation aims to protect consumers from these dangerous goods while holding any of these parties accountable for allowing a subpar product to enter the marketplace when they were fully aware or should have been aware that the product was problematic. The blame that can be pinned on any of the groups involved from the manufacturer on down is contingent upon the relevant jurisdiction. Product liability commonly addresses retail merchandise, but its spectrum extends to any good that can be sold.

Product liability claims can be filed based on three types of defects:

• Design defects Liability is caused by an error in the supervision of the product's design. As a result, the product is dangerous when used as directed or for another acceptable purpose.
• Manufacturing Defects Liability is caused by a blunder in the manufacturing process.
• Marketing Defects Liability is caused by inadequate warning labels, instructions, etc. that fail to alert the consumer about product defects or safety issues.

To emerge from a product liability lawsuit victoriously, the kind of evidence that the claimant must prove will differ depending on jurisdiction. The claimant may utilize one or more of the following liability theories:

• Negligence - In this type of action, the claimant normally needs to show that the entity responsible for releasing the product into the marketplace:
• Had an obligation to provide goods that would function as expected.
• Would have discovered the defect using checks and balances during the design, manufacturing, or inspection process.
• Did not meet its commitment to the consumer.
• Fabricated, sold, or distributed a defective product that injured the consumer while they were using the product as it was intended.
• Strict liability - If the claimant proves that a product is defective, the defendant is liable regardless of how meticulous the effort was during the design, development, marketing, shipment, and sale of the product.
• Breach of warranty - A warranty is basically a contract of fitness between a manufacturer or retailer and the consumer. A warranty can be violated in one of two ways:
• Breach of express warranty - The claimant accuses the defendant of infringement of the written product warranty.
• Breach of implied warranty - The claimant argues that despite the fact that the product defect is not covered by express warranty or that there is no express warranty, the defect prohibits the consumer from using it properly.

Just about anything you can purchase can be targeted in a product liability lawsuit, but these are some of the types you will see more frequently.

Alcoholic beverage lawsuits are similar to those involving drinks that have been tampered with, but some components of these cases are unique to alcohol. For instance, some states enforce laws that hold sellers of adulterated alcoholic beverages liable for injuries sustained by the consumer or members of their family as a direct result of the consumption of the beverage.

Lawsuits related to apparel defects usually consist of issues regarding fire resistance, irritating fabric, improper construction, hidden foreign objects, or poor traction in footwear. The term apparel covers all kinds of articles from shirts and pants to costumes and work boots.

Personal injury, property destruction, and sometimes death can all be caused by contact with materials containing asbestos. Countless product liability lawsuits have been responsible for providing compensation to victims who suffered damages as a result of this exposure. Claimants have utilized the laws of strict liability, design defect, failure to warn, and civil conspiracy theories to support their cases.

Defective household chemicals and cosmetics for personal hygiene may be targeted for consumer lawsuits if they injure someone. In these claims, the plaintiff must provide evidence that the manufacturer or vendor had prior knowledge or should have been aware of these products' side effects.

Numerous victims of intentional or inadvertent shootings have tried to prove the guns involved were flawed and that the manufacturers or retailers were responsible for any harm that was caused. But, this notion has not gone over too well in court. One exception to this rule is in regard to "Saturday night specials," or inexpensive handguns known to be incredibly unsafe and recognized for their prevalence in criminal circles.

All mass-produced food, beverages, and agricultural products (e.g., crop care, livestock food) may be subject to product liability lawsuits if they are contaminated and cause sickness. Oftentimes, if the claimant can establish that a law was broken, such as sanitary standards or restrictions on pesticides, it can be proven that the defendant exercised some level of negligence.

Use of faulty machinery and tools often ends with someone suffering a serious injury. If this damage was caused by a product defect or its failure to provide sufficient notice that something is wrong, the manufacturer or vendor could be held accountable. Defendants involved in these cases are also required to inform consumers of the potential dangers that coincide with misuse of their product if they could reasonably have predicted that improper usage might happen.

Unless you're an expert, it can be difficult to decipher between cases concerning medical product liability and medical malpractice. Attorneys with a background in these areas of practice can counsel claimants on the applicable laws.

Automobile manufacturers have a responsibility to painstakingly design their vehicles to guarantee driver, passenger, and even pedestrian safety. Claimants are often partially liable for damages in these kinds of cases if they chose not to wear a seatbelt, strapped a child in their seat improperly, or were driving recklessly or under the influence.

Drug manufacturers must conform to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations regarding the fabrication, promotion, and sale of a product. However, if a drug is defective, this will even override the fact that the company followed all of the FDA guidelines. It is the responsibility of the drug manufacturer to alert consumers of all potential side effects. Normally, a physician or pharmacist will handle the task of relaying this information to the user. On the other hand, if the manufacturer advertises its drug directly to the general population (e.g., Viagra), it might still have a duty to warn the public, without a mediator such as a doctor or pharmacist, about the risks associated with the medication.

Recreational products are probably the broadest category on this list because they can include anything made for the purpose of entertainment from board games to roller coasters. Similar to the rest of the products, manufacturers and vendors have the responsibility to carefully inspect their products for safety issues and warn the public about possible risks.

Tobacco product manufacturers have recently been ordered by the courts to pay out large sums for damages related to diseases caused by smoking cigarettes. Evidence exists that shows tobacco companies may have hidden the fact that they were well aware of the destructive and addictive effects of their products for years. However, smokers from the younger generation will have a more difficult time claiming that they were victimized as a result of that lack of warning because the detrimental consequences of smoking have been circulating for quite a while.