Can You Sue For Negligence For An Injury Caused By A Defective Product?

Many individuals who have been injured by a defective product may wonder how such a flawed item made its way into the marketplace and eventually their own possession without being flagged as dangerous. Victims of defective products may feel that surely carelessness was involved at some point – perhaps several points – along the product’s journey into their hands, and as a result they may want to know whether they have a case to sue for negligence to hold the responsible parties to account. While there is sometimes an argument to be made for negligence in a defective product case, in fact it is very common for this type of lawsuit to be tried on the basis of strict liability instead. Learn more about defective product cases, the principle of strict liability, and whether you may wish to sue for negligence over your defective product injury when you call Shillen Mackall Seldon & Spicer at (802) 457-4848.

Understanding Product Liability

Lawsuits filed over injuries caused by defective products belong to an area of law known as product liability. As the name suggests, product liability cases deal with the legal responsibility – which, as the Legal Information Institute (LII) of Cornell Law School explains, is also known as liability – that the various parties involved in designing, manufacturing, or distributing a product assume with respect to their work and the safety of the consumers who buy and use these goods.

Defective Products Personal Injury

Product liability law itself falls within a larger category of civil torts law known as personal injury. In personal injury lawsuits, one party (the plaintiff) alleges that they have suffered some form of “damages” as the result of inappropriate action, or failure to take appropriate action, by another party (the defendant). The plaintiff files a personal injury lawsuit in order to recover compensation for their damages, which are typically divided into economic losses such as medical expenses or the costs of property replacement or repair vs. non-economic harms such as pain and suffering or the loss of enjoyment. If the plaintiff succeeds in proving their case, then the defendant will be ordered to pay the plaintiff an amount specified in the court’s final order (personal injury lawsuits sometimes do, and sometimes do not, identify the monetary amounts sought by their plaintiffs; the criteria for when and whether such specifications are appropriate vary from state to state).

Types of Torts in Personal Injury Cases

In order to advance a case for why they should be compensated, the plaintiff in a personal injury case will usually need to not only show that they have suffered damages, but also that the defendant’s actions or lapses led to those damages. Courts routinely dismiss civil torts cases in which the plaintiff fails to effectively link their difficulties to the defendant’s conduct.

In personal injury lawsuits, there are three main types of wrongs, or torts, on which a plaintiff’s argument for holding the defendant liable may be based. These are:

• Negligence: While the specific requirements can vary from one state to another, generally speaking a plaintiff alleging negligence will typically need to show that the defendant failed to take the degree of care a reasonable person would have considered appropriate under the circumstances in order to prevent a foreseeable outcome similar to that suffered by the plaintiff.
• Intentional tort: If the plaintiff in a personal injury case alleges that, rather than simply failing to take an appropriate degree of care, the defendant acted deliberately, knowing that their conduct would cause harm, then the case is founded on an allegation of intentional tort.
• Strict Liability: Strict liability may apply in a limited set of personal injury cases for which the defendant’s intent does not matter in determining legal responsibility.

Negligence is the most common fault alleged in personal injury lawsuits by such a margin that many people actually conflate negligence with civil liability. Intentional tort cases are much less common, partly because intentionally harming another person can often lead to criminal charges instead (criminal charges do not always negate the possibility of a civil case, but they can certainly complicate the legal picture), and partly also because proving anyone’s intentions can of course be difficult. Strict liability, on the other hand, is a legal concept that may only be applied in a few types of personal injury cases – but defective product lawsuits are among those few.

Strict Liability vs. Negligence in Defective Product Cases

Cornell’s LII points out that defective product cases are among the few types of personal injury lawsuits in which courts regularly apply the doctrine of strict liability. While it may also be possible to sue for negligence in a defective product case, many attorneys may recommend against doing so if they believe the case meets the usual criteria for strict liability because the plaintiff in a case based on strict liability has fewer elements to prove (and therefore typically fewer chances for a legal misstep) than would a plaintiff alleging negligence.

When a plaintiff decides to sue for negligence, he or she is committing to proving several distinct points in order to win the case. The plaintiff (or their attorney, if they are working with professional legal representation): will need to show:

• That the defendant had a duty of care with respect to the plaintiff
• That the defendant failed to uphold that duty of care
• That the plaintiff sustained damages
• That the plaintiff’s damages resulted from the defendant’s failure to honor their duty of care

All of these elements may be possible to prove in a product liability case – but in a defective product case based on the principle of strict liability, generally speaking it is sufficient to prove that the product in question was defective and that the plaintiff suffered some form of loss or injury as a result of the defect; the defendant’s intent, or the degree of care taken, will not affect the outcome of a strict liability case as long as the court accepts that strict liability is the appropriate tort. A product liability lawyer with Shillen Mackall Seldon & Spicer may be able to help you evaluate how civil torts law may apply to your defective product case.

Strict Liability and Consumer Protection

Personal injury law exists so that individuals who suffer unnecessary harms as the result of others’ wrongdoing have legal recourse for seeking justice through the civil courts, even when the situation does not involve any acts that would lead to criminal charges. Product liability, as a subset of personal injury law, has developed in part to protect consumers from the hazards posed by dangerous product designs and inadequate quality controls. This area of law acknowledges that consumers are often not expert analysts equipped to evaluate the safety of each product they may need to use over the course of their lives, and they rely on the parties who develop product ideas, implement them, and make the results available for purchase to ensure that the goods they buy are safe to use. Strict liability is commonly applied in defective product cases as a measure to protect consumers against the risks posed by “cutting corners” in product design and testing, or quality checks during the manufacturing and distribution process, as well as inadequate or faulty instructions and labeling.

Some of the defects to which the principle of strict liability is often applied include:

• Design defects: A product with a defective design is flawed from its inception. Even if perfectly manufactured and shipped and handled with immense care, the product will never truly be safe to use because the risks it poses are inherent to the way it is built. Ideally, businesses would “weed out” these faulty design ideas during product development and testing – but sometimes, these stages are rushed, or possible risks are overlooked, and a defective product makes its way into the marketplace. An inadequate testing process could give rise to a case based on negligence, but design defects are commonly subject to strict liability because the presumption in many instances is that the parties developing a new product have a responsibility to ensure the safety of its design before putting it into manufacturing and distribution.
• Manufacturing defects: Manufacturing defects can occur for a number of reasons, including as an incidental feature of the usual production process. In this instance, the product as designed may be generally safe to use, but a specific item is flawed in some way. Generally speaking, quality controls at the manufacturing site (often but not necessarily a factory) are used to catch products with manufacturing defects before they enter the distribution process. However, the high risk to consumer safety posed by certain types of manufacturing defects (such as faulty electrical wiring or inadequately secured sharpened components) frequently lead to the application of strict liability in this type of defective product case.
• Marketing defects: While many people normally think of “marketing” as the activity in which a business engages to promote the sale of its goods or services, in product liability law the category of marketing defects includes not only sales-promotional verbiage and iconography, but also materials such as instructions for use. Promotional signage that causes harm by misleading consumers into unsafe use of the product, or faulty instructions that neglect to provide appropriate details for safe operation, can create liability for marketing defects.

Most states acknowledge some form of strict liability for defective product cases. However, some states do differentiate between distinct types of defective product cases based on various criteria; Vermont, for instance, imposes specific penalties to products deemed unsafe if they also meet the legal definition for children’s products specified in V.S.A. § 2470a. If you are wondering whether you should sue for negligence for an injury caused by a defective product, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney familiar with your state’s personal injury laws.

Call a Defective Product Lawyer Today

At Shillen Mackall Seldon & Spicer, our law firm motto is “promoting justice.” We embrace the legal ideal of the civil court system, which allows individuals to seek compensation for harms they have suffered when the damages done to their lives and livelihoods does not fall under the category of a crime. However, a defective product lawsuit can often result in changes to a product’s labeling or design, or expose the need for changes in the manufacturing process, product liability cases frequently present an opportunity for not only securing compensation for the individuals who have been injured, but also for reducing the chances that others will experience the same harms. Defective product cases give us the chance to effect positive change in the world. Contact our office today to discuss your case. Call (802) 457-4848 to be connected with a member of our team in New Hampshire, Florida, or Vermont.