Design Defects: Can Products Be Legally Faulty?

Design defects are a type of product defect that can result in legal liability. They are inherent and exist before a product is manufactured, rendering it unreasonably dangerous to use due to a design flaw. If a product has a design defect, all products of the same type will have the same defect. Design defect cases focus on the manufacturer's plans for producing the product and their liability arises when a plaintiff can show that the product posed a foreseeable risk of danger when used as intended. The plaintiff must also prove that the defect caused the injury and that it was possible for the manufacturer to adopt a reasonable alternative design. The rules vary depending on the jurisdiction, with some using the consumer expectations test and others using the alternative design test to determine liability.

In California, plaintiffs have two years to file a civil lawsuit for injuries caused by defective products

California law imposes strict liability for design defects, which means that the plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant was negligent. Instead, they must prove that the defendant designed, manufactured, distributed, or sold the product, and that it was defective when it left the defendant's control. The plaintiff must also prove that they used the product in a reasonably foreseeable manner and suffered injury as a direct result of the defect.

The plaintiff must also establish a causal connection between the defendant, the product, and the injury. This can be difficult, as it often requires technical and scientific knowledge. It is also important to note that more than one party can be held liable in a product defect case, and all potential liable parties should be named at the beginning of the case.

There are two tests that can be used to prove a design defect: the consumer expectation test and the risk-benefit test. The consumer expectation test evaluates whether a product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable way. The risk-benefit test considers whether the risks of a product outweigh the benefits.

Manufacturers have a duty to design products that are reasonably safe for their intended use

Manufacturers have a fundamental duty to design products that are reasonably safe for their intended use. This obligation stems from their responsibility to protect consumers from harm and injury. It requires manufacturers to exercise due care in the design, testing, and production of their products.

Design defects are inherent, as they exist before a product is manufactured. While the item might serve its purpose well, it can be unreasonably dangerous to use due to a design flaw. In most cases, the simplest test for proving a design defect is the consumer expectation test. This test evaluates whether a product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform when used as intended, or in a reasonably foreseeable way.

The other test is the risk-benefit test, which evaluates whether the harmful consequences of a product's design outweigh its benefits. A product is said to be defective when a reasonable person would conclude that the danger-in-fact, whether foreseeable or not, outweighs the utility of the product.

When a design defect in a product leads to injuries or damages, manufacturers can be held accountable for the following reasons:

• Negligence: If the manufacturer’s design process is found to be negligent and below the expected standard of care, they can be held liable for injuries resulting from the defect.
• Strict liability: This principle places the burden of proof on the manufacturer, making them responsible for injuries caused by their defective product, regardless of negligence.

Plaintiffs must prove a causal connection between the defendant, the product, and the injury

In design defect cases, plaintiffs must prove a causal connection between the defendant, the product, and the injury. This is essential to establish liability and hold the defendant accountable for their negligence.

In personal injury cases, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct or negligence led to their injuries or damages. This causal link, known as "causation," is a critical aspect of proving the defendant's liability. The plaintiff must show that "but for" the defendant's actions or negligence, their injuries would not have occurred. This is known as the "but-for" test, which is commonly used to establish causation.

In the context of design defects, plaintiffs must prove that the defect in the product's design caused their injuries. This can be challenging, as there may be multiple factors contributing to the injury, and it is important to distinguish between the product and its proposed alternative. For example, in a Massachusetts appeals court decision, the plaintiff argued that the risks of blood clots associated with a contraceptive patch could have been reduced if it were in pill form. However, the court ruled that since the pill and the patch operate in fundamentally different ways, the pill could not be considered a legally sufficient reasonable alternative.

To establish causation, plaintiffs can use various types of evidence, including police accident reports, medical records, and eyewitness testimonies. This evidence helps demonstrate the causal relationship between the defendant's conduct or negligence and the plaintiff's injuries. It is important to note that the plaintiff must also prove that they were not negligent themselves and that the harm was caused solely by the defective product.

In some states, such as California, the burden of proof lies with the defendant, who must justify the product's design and show that there was no defect. This is an exception to the general rule in most states, where the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of a design defect.

In 47 US states, the plaintiff must prove the existence of a design defect

In the United States, there are three primary routes to proving product liability: strict liability, negligence, and warranty theories. The burden of proof falls on the plaintiff to prove the essential elements of their case. In 47 US states, this includes proving the existence of a design defect. In the remaining states—Alaska, California, and Hawaii—the defendant must justify the product's design to show why there was no defect.

Design defects are inherent, as they exist before a product is manufactured. While a product might serve its purpose well, it can be unreasonably dangerous to use due to a design flaw. In these cases, the plaintiff must prove that the product was defective, regardless of the defendant's intent. It is irrelevant whether the manufacturer or supplier exercised great care; if there is a defect in the product that causes harm, they will be liable for it.

Proving a design defect can be complex and may vary based on the specific circumstances of each case. It requires intricate details to establish manufacturer negligence, including expert witness testimony, proving the plaintiff wasn't negligent, and demonstrating that any harm was caused by the product's defective condition. In California, there are two tests to prove a design defect: the consumer expectation test and the risk-benefit test. The consumer expectation test evaluates whether a product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable way. The risk-benefit test considers the risks and benefits of the product's design.

It is important to note that a plaintiff must have been using the product for its intended purpose or, at least, a purpose that was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. If a reasonable consumer would not find the product to be defective when used in a reasonable manner, then the defendant is not liable, even if the product's design flaw resulted in injury. Causation requires proof of both cause-in-fact and proximate cause, which is shown when the injury is caused by and connected to the defect.

Plaintiffs can bolster their case by pleading multiple claims against a defendant

In the context of product liability, plaintiffs can strengthen their case by asserting multiple claims against a defendant. Product liability refers to the liability of any party in the chain of manufacture of a product for any damage caused by that product. This includes the manufacturer of component parts, the assembling manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retail store owner.

In the case of design defects, plaintiffs can bring civil claims against the responsible party, which is often the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer. Design defects are inherent, as they exist before the product is manufactured, and can cause harm to consumers. While a product may serve its purpose well, it can still be unreasonably dangerous to use due to a design flaw.

To prove a design defect, plaintiffs can use the consumer expectation test, which evaluates whether a product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable way. Alternatively, the risk-benefit test can be used to prove a design defect, which considers the risks and benefits of the product's design. Plaintiffs may use either test or both to strengthen their case.

In addition to asserting multiple claims, plaintiffs can also bolster their case by providing intricate details, including expert witness testimony, proving they were not negligent, and demonstrating that any harm was caused by the product's defective condition. It is important to note that the legal steps in a design defect case can be complex and may vary depending on the specific circumstances. Therefore, it is crucial to seek legal guidance from a qualified attorney specializing in product liability.

Frequently asked questions