A design defect claim requires proof that a product’s design itself made it unreasonably dangerous, not just that one unit malfunctioned. The plaintiff must also show a safer alternative design was realistically achievable and that the design defect directly led to the injury during intended or foreseeable use. Most importantly, the claim hinges on evidence that the flaw passes into the product line and could have been avoided through a practical and affordable redesign.
Key Elements to Prove
- Unreasonably Dangerous Design: The product is unreasonably dangerous because its underlying design makes it unsafe for intended or foreseeable use, regardless of manufacturing quality.
- Foreseeable Use: The injury resulted from a use of the product that was reasonably foreseeable.
- Causation: The defective design directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries and resulting damages.
- Safer Alternative Design: The manufacturer could have implemented a safer and feasible alternative design.
- Damages: The defect caused the plaintiff to incur medical expenses, lose wages, and pain & suffering.
HOW IT DIFFERS FROM OTHER DEFECTS
- Design Defect: The design itself is flawed, creating a common danger across the entire product line such as a rollover-prone vehicle.
- Manufacturing Defect: The problem stems from a production error that affects only specific units, not the entire product line.
- Marketing Defect: A failure-to-warn claim involves a product that is safe as designed but dangerous due to inadequate warnings or instructions.
THE PRODUCT LIABILITY TORTS
A. The Strict Product Liability Doctrine
This section states that a seller who offers a product in a defective condition that makes it dangerous to users, consumers, or their property can be held liable for any resulting physical harm. This applies when the seller is in the business of selling such products and the product reaches the user or consumer in substantially the same condition as it was sold.
The rules apply when the seller exercised all care and the user had no direct purchase or contract with the seller.
The Restatement forms the basis for most strict product liability law, with many states adopting statutory versions, though application can vary by state.
WHO MAY BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS?
Any entity involved in the chain of distribution for a defective product may be liable for injuries caused by the defect.
Potentially liable parties include the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer. Strict product liability shifts the risk of loss from the consumer to those in the distribution chain who profit from the sale. A seller or retailer can be held liable for injuries caused by a defective product, even if they did not create the defect. In most states, however, a distributor or retailer held liable may seek indemnity from the party responsible for the defect.
Non-faulty distributors or sellers can remain liable under pure comparative fault systems.
In these states, product liability is treated as a form of fault, and the manufacturer’s liability is legally imputed to the distributor or retailer, even if they aren’t jointly liable.
ELEMENT OF THE PRODUCT LIABILITY TORT CLAIM
To succeed on a strict product liability claim, a plaintiff must show that the product was inherently defective and that the defect caused the claimed injury or damage. Both elements must be proven separately and specifically.
