Product liability is a special facet of tort law. It is a doctrine that gives plaintiffs a cause of action if they purchase or use a defective item. Most frequently, the doctrine falls under negligence, but was primarily brought under strict liability in the past. You are most likely very familiar with product recalls due to faulty designs, and unfortunately an innocent bystander normally pays the price for the company to discover there is something fundamentally wrong with their products. However, as with anything in life, product liability is not as simple as being hurt by a product; generally, product liability falls into four categories: design defects, manufacturing defects, manufacturing defects, and breaches of warranty.
Manufacturing and design defects are the two most common claims brought against commercial producers and distributors. A manufacturing defect occurs when the manufacturing of a product was done incorrectly. A design defect is when the design of a product was unsafe and safer alternatives existed.
Design defects are typically brought under a strict liability theory. A design defect exists when the product is built in accordance with its intended specifications, but the design itself is inherently defective. To show a design defect, a plaintiff must show that [1] the product is placed on the market; [2] there is knowledge that it will be used without inspection for defect; [3] the product proves to be defective; and [4] the defect causes injury.
There are two tests used to prove a design defect under strict product liability: [1] the consumer expectations test; and [2] the risk-benefit test. The consumer expectations test allows a plaintiff to prove a defect in the design of a product by showing that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when the product is in the manner intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner. The risk-benefits test requires the defendant to show that the product’s design approximately causes their injury and that the benefits of the design do outweigh the risk of danger inherent in that design.
Regardless of whether the consumer expectations or risk-benefit test is used, a plaintiff must put forward sufficient evidence to show that the design of the product approximately caused the injury. Notably, this requires more than just a showing that the product caused the injury. Instead, the plaintiff must show that some specific design feature of the product caused the injury.
If the plaintiffs can show that some specific design feature approximately caused their injury, then the analysis shifts to the risk-benefit analysis. Here, the defendant must show that the benefits of the allegedly defective design, when balanced against feasibility and alternative designs, outweigh the inherent risk of design in the product.
Thanks to a car accident lawyer with our friends at Eglet Adams for their insight on design defects and product liability. If you have been involved in a car accident due to a faulty part on your vehicle, then you need to seek legal counsel — reach out to a lawyer near you for representation.