Product Liability: Laws Governing Proper Functionality

Product liability law holds manufacturers, producers, distributors, suppliers, and retailers responsible for injuries caused by the products they sell to the public. These entities are liable for damages if a defective product injures a consumer. There are three main types of defects that can cause liability for manufacturers and suppliers: design defects, manufacturing defects, and marketing defects. Design defects are flaws in the product's design that render all products with the same design defective. Manufacturing defects occur during the production process, resulting in some products being flawed while others are not. Marketing defects arise from a manufacturer's failure to warn about potential hazards associated with using their product.

Manufacturing defects

Manufacturers are liable for harm caused by a defect that results from an error in the manufacturing process. If a poorly manufactured product leaves the factory and causes injury when used for its intended purpose, the manufacturer is liable for any injuries that result under the principle of strict liability. A plaintiff trying to prove strict liability need only show that the product was defective and that the defect caused their injuries.

However, it can be challenging to prove that a manufacturing defect was the actual and proximate cause of an accident. For example, in a car accident, a defendant may argue that the plaintiff's poor reaction to driving conditions or driving into the oncoming lane was the actual cause of the accident, not a defect in the steering or braking system.

To prove a manufacturing defect for strict liability, a plaintiff must show that the product received did not follow the manufacturer's design and that the defect occurred before leaving the control of the manufacturer. Plaintiffs may also be able to recover based upon an implied warranty of merchantability, which implies that every product is suitable for its intended use.

Design defects

For example, a chair designed with only three legs is considered to have a design defect because it tips over too easily. In this case, the design itself is flawed, and any chair made according to this design will be defective.

To prove a design defect, a plaintiff must show that the product posed a foreseeable risk of danger when used as intended. For instance, if a plaintiff's hand is amputated while using a power tool with a plastic guard that has openings that are too large, they may bring a product liability suit against the manufacturer, arguing that it was foreseeable that a person's hand could slip through the guard.

In some jurisdictions, the plaintiff must also show that it was economically and practically feasible for the manufacturer to adopt a safer design. This is known as the "risk-utility" or "alternative design" test. The plaintiff must prove that the alternative design was feasible from both a practical and economic standpoint and did not oppose the product's function.

In other jurisdictions, the plaintiff must show that the product posed a greater risk than what an ordinary consumer would expect. This is known as the "consumer expectations" test, which focuses on whether a reasonable consumer would find the product defective when used in a reasonable manner.

Design defect cases are usually brought against the manufacturer responsible for the design, rather than a seller or assembler.

Marketing defects

Misleading Advertising

Misleading advertising occurs when a company promotes a product in a way that fails to accurately reflect its use and any potential hazards. For example, a company advertising a bicycle helmet as "indestructible" when it can be crushed in a serious accident.

Inadequate Warnings

Inadequate warnings refer to the absence or insufficiency of information about the potential risks and side effects associated with a product. This includes failing to list side effects, medication interactions, allergen warnings, and other relevant safety information.

Improper Instructions

Improper instructions refer to the lack of clear and comprehensive information about how to properly use a product. Many items can be hazardous if used incorrectly, and retailers or manufacturers can be held liable if they fail to provide proper instructions for their products.

Duty to Warn and Inform

Sellers and manufacturers have a legal duty to provide appropriate warnings and instructions when their products pose a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm. Courts consider the foreseeability and severity of potential harm, as well as the ease and effectiveness of providing adequate warnings and instructions.

Legal Avenues for Consumers

Consumers who sustain damages due to marketing defects have several legal avenues for recourse, including breach of warranty, breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation, negligence, and strict liability.

Breach of Warranty

A warranty is a promise made by the manufacturer or seller that the product is of a certain quality. If the product fails to meet that standard, they are legally obligated to repair or replace it.

Breach of Contract

Breach of contract pertains to service-related offerings. When a service is exchanged, a contract is created, outlining expectations regarding the service provided, price, and dates. If the service provider fails to fulfil their obligations, the consumer may be entitled to a breach of contract claim.

Fraud

Fraud claims arise from false representations made by a manufacturer or provider, who knowingly misleads consumers to influence their purchasing decisions, resulting in injury or harm.

Negligence

Negligence in marketing defects includes instances of inaccurate or inadequate labelling. Manufacturers and providers are responsible for placing adequate warnings, labels, directions, or instructions on a product's packaging to ensure consumers are aware of potential risks.

Strict Liability

Strict liability assumes that it is the manufacturer's or provider's responsibility to provide a safe product. Consumers must prove that the product was unreasonably unsafe or dangerous when designed, manufactured, or sold, and that the seller or manufacturer intended for it to reach the consumer without changes.

Strict liability

Under strict liability laws, the plaintiff only needs to prove that the defendant manufactured, distributed, or supplied the product; the product was defective; the defect caused injury to the plaintiff; and as a result, the plaintiff sustained damages. This differs from negligence claims, which require proof of a breach of duty of care and that the breach caused the injury.

However, critics of strict liability argue that it creates a moral hazard, claiming that consumers will underinvest in care as they are not held responsible for product defects. They also argue that requiring manufacturers to internalize costs will increase the price of goods, leading to consumers seeking substitute products.

Negligence

The manufacturer's negligence may be a failure to take care during the manufacturing process, design, testing, or providing effective warnings of dangers. The manufacturer must exercise a higher standard of care than is usually found in ordinary personal injury lawsuits, and their behaviour will be measured against the care exercised by other experts in manufacturing.

For example, if a blender is touted for safety but has a defective auto-shutoff feature that fails and causes injury, the injured party would have a strong product liability claim.

However, negligence claims can be difficult and expensive, as the injured party must prove the manufacturer failed to take reasonable care. In cases of negligent design, the injured party's position is much weaker, and expert evidence will be necessary to establish negligence.

Frequently asked questions