Dallas Product Liability Lawyer

Strict product liability cases can be divided into three categories:

Manufacturing Defects

The product was improperly assembled, typically in the factory. Under a manufacturing defect claim, the plaintiff is alleged that the product did not do what it was designed to do because it was improperly built or put together. An example of a manufacturing claim would be a car that failed the unit inspection test but was shipped out of the factory anyways.

Design Defects

Although the object was well-made and isn’t inherently broken or defective, its design is hazardous. Examples include cars that have faulty seat belts or who’s frame design is shown to statistically lead to car crashes, resulting in recalls. The distinction between a manufacturing and a design defect is that while individual items might be at fault in a manufacturing defect, an entire lot of items or even the whole fleet is faulty under a design defect.

Marketing/Warning Defects

When hazards cannot be eliminated from a product, it must be labeled clearly and unambiguously so that consumers are aware of the risks. If a product is mislabeled, causing confusion and reducing risk or hazard, or if the product is not labeled at all, the consumer may be unable to take preventive precautions. The most famous marketing warning defect is the consumer who was awarded when she spilled McDonald’s coffee without a warning label the coffee was hot.

Although strict liability technically has no defenses the defendant can bring, the defense will still argue that they are correct because the plaintiff fails to meet the elements of product liability. These arguments include:

• Some third-party person or event interfered with the product in such a way that the plaintiff’s injury was not caused by the goods as it was originally sold. For example, a reckless courier could have damaged the product during transportation, resulting in the defect that injured the plaintiff.
• The plaintiff willfully used the product in a harmful manner, or used it while knowing it was defective in advance. If a person, for example, uses a defective hairdryer in a damp bathtub, this is sufficient grounds for dismissing a personal injury action; the hairdryer’s seller would not be liable.
• The plaintiff utilized the product carelessly, to the point where their own negligence was a major contributor to the accident, and the plaintiff used the product in a way that was not intended.

Surprisingly, if a product is defective and causes harm to consumers, the seller, the distributor, and the original manufacturer of the goods can all be sued.

Because manufacturers make the components and assemble the finished product, they are often the first party considered under product liability. However, because strict product liability ignores the norm of conduct, retailers and distributors may be held accountable for distributing and selling tainted or dangerous items. For example, a distributor who picks up a product from a manufacturing plant and transfers it to a retailer without examining it can be found liable. Similarly, Retailers can be liable if they place a product on their shelves, regardless of the state the product was in.

Defendant must try to argue they cannot be found liable because the product went out of the chain-of-custody which caused the product to be defective independently of the defendant.