Blog

Product Liability

Posted by: euser
October 04, 2007
Topic: Minnesota Personal Injury

Product designers, manufacturers, distributors, and sellers may be held liable when a consumer is injured by an "unreasonably dangerous" product. A product is generally considered "unreasonably dangerous" when the likelihood and magnitude of probable harm from the product is greater than the cost of preventing the harm. A manufacturer does not have a duty to make a product entirely accident-proof or foolproof, only free from unreasonable dangers.

Defendant sellers and manufacturers can be held liable for a defective product under either a negligence or strict liability theory of law, depending on the evidence available and the circumstances of the case, although such cases are more often brought under strict liability. In order to recover under a strict liability theory, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant's product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous for its intended use, that the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control, and that the defect was the "proximate cause" of the injury sustained (that is, the cause that directly produced the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred).

A particular defendant will only be held liable if the product was in a defective condition at the time that it was sold or distributed to the consumer. The defendant generally will not be liable if the product was to be substantially changed before reaching the consumer, or if the consumer altered or modified the product in a way that made it dangerous. Moreover, a defendant will only be held liable for injuries arising from the intended use of the product or a use which, although unintended, was reasonably foreseeable, but not for misuse that would not have been reasonably anticipated.

There are three main types of product defects:

1. Manufacturing Defect: The product departs from its intended design and doesn't work the way it was meant to.

2. Design Defect: The product works as it was meant to, but something in its design makes it unreasonably dangerous and that danger could have been avoided or minimized by a reasonable alternative design.

3. Defective/Inadequate Warnings: A foreseeable risk of harm could have been reduced or avoided by providing reasonable warnings of danger or instructions for safe use of the product. However, no warning may be necessary where the danger is or should be obvious to the consumer.

Defenses to Product Liability: A defendant seller or manufacturer has several available defenses that may absolve or limit liability.

1. Comparative and Contributory Negligence: In a case brought under a theory of negligence, a plaintiff's own negligence that played a part in causing the injury may reduce the amount of damages recoverable or be significant enough to bar recovery entirely.

2. Assumption of Risk: If a plaintiff voluntarily takes on a known risk of loss, injury, or damage in using the product, the plaintiff may be completely barred from recovery.

3. Expiration: Under Minnesota statute, a manufacturer or seller has a defense if injury from the product was sustained following the "expiration of the ordinary useful life of the product" (that is, after the period during which a similar, effective product would be reasonably safe to use).

The attorneys at Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz are experienced and knowledgeable in this area and can help to evaluate your potential product liability case today.