Maryland Product Liability Lawyers

Negligence

Negligence is a key factor in holding parties accountable when a defective product causes harm. Manufacturers, distributors, or retailers can be considered negligent if they fail to meet a reasonable standard of care in designing, producing, or marketing a product. This principle is central to many product liability claims and helps protect consumers from unsafe products.

Here, we’ll examine negligence in product liability, including how it is established, the responsibilities of different parties, and the impact on those injured by defective products. But first, it’s important to gain a clear understanding of product liability law itself.

Understanding the Basics of Product Liability

The foundation of product liability law lies in the idea that products must meet certain safety standards and expectations. When a product fails to perform as intended, resulting in harm, the injured party may seek legal recourse. There are generally three main types of product defects that can give rise to liability claims: design defects, manufacturing defects, and marketing defects.

Design defects occur when a product is inherently unsafe due to its design, even before it is manufactured. This means that the concept or plan for the product is flawed, leading to an unsafe product. A classic example is a car with a design that makes it prone to rolling over in a crash. In these cases, the manufacturer may be held liable if it can be shown that a reasonable alternative design could have reduced the risk of harm without significantly compromising the product’s functionality.

Manufacturing defects, on the other hand, arise when a product is produced in a way that deviates from its intended design. This could happen due to errors in the assembly line or the use of substandard materials. For instance, if a batch of bicycle brakes is improperly assembled, leading to a failure during use, the manufacturer could be liable for any resulting injuries. Here, the focus is on the specific unit of the product that caused the harm rather than its overall design.

Marketing defects relate to how a product is promoted or labeled. This includes inadequate warnings or instructions that fail to inform consumers about potential dangers associated with the product. For example, if a cleaning product lacks a reasonable warning about its toxic components, and a consumer suffers harm as a result, the company could be held liable. In such cases, the law mandates that manufacturers provide clear and comprehensive information to help consumers use the product safely.

In product liability cases, the concept of strict liability often comes into play. Under strict liability, a plaintiff does not need to prove negligence; instead, they only need to demonstrate that the product was defective and that this defect caused their injury. This principle simplifies the legal process for injured parties, making it easier for them to seek compensation for their damages.

The law also recognizes the importance of consumer rights in product liability claims. Consumers have the right to expect that products will be safe for use, and they can pursue claims if those expectations are not met. This legal framework not only protects individuals but also encourages manufacturers to adhere to high safety standards in the design and production of their goods.

Maryland Product Liability Lawyers

For lawsuits when consumers are harmed by unsafe goods.

How Negligence Applies:

• Duty of Care: Manufacturers owe a duty to consumers to ensure products are reasonably safe.
• Breach of Duty: This occurs through design flaws, unsafe design, poor quality or lack of testing.
• Manufacturing Defects: Insufficient warnings or inadequate instructions.
• Causation: The negligent act breach must directly cause the injury actual and proximate cause.
• Damages: The plaintiff must suffer actual harm, like medical bills or lost wages, to claim compensation.

Negligence vs. Strict Liability

Negligence requires showing that the defendant was careless and failed to exercise reasonable care.

Strict Liability holds defendants liable for a defective product regardless of fault, focusing on whether the product was defective and injured the user. A negligence claim can sometimes succeed where a strict liability claim might not such as, certain prescription drugs.

Key Takeaway

A product liability negligence claim argues that a company was careless, and that carelessness led to a defective product that harmed someone, whereas a strict liability claim simply says the product was defective and caused harm.

In the nineteenth century, the standard concept of products liability was the doctrine of privity of contract.

Privity of contract required parties to have entered into a contract of sale of sale between the buyer and seller of a product and bound both parties.

Manufacturers of products were shielded from consumer lawsuits under this doctrine because there was never a direct contract between the manufacturer of a product and the consumer

. The Macpherson case involving defective automobile wheels, Judge Benjamin Cardozo revolutionized products liability by moving it from contract law to tort.

While the traditional narrative noted exceptions to the privity rule for inherently dangerous products like poisons, it insisted that these exceptions were unusual peripheral and that privity was the usual rule.

The doctrine of privity of contract was not absolute

. State courts frequently held manufacturers liable despite a recognition of privity of contract . Many of the cases in which privity was rejected involved women and children as plaintiffs and p

products that were used in the home, such as medicine, food, and clothing. It is possible that courts thought that women and children deserved special protection.

In fact, privity never dominated product s liability law in the nineteenth century.

The history of products liability proceeds from no liability to negligence to strict liability and then back again to negligence for harmful products.

Case law was always in favor of negligence, Defendants tried and failed to argue that privity governed their cases.

The Traditional Narrative . Our Maryland Product Liability Lawyers can answer your questions .

The traditional narrative of products liability law is that its origin ,lies in the New York Court of Appeals decision in MacPherson -VS- Buick Motor Co

.

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916) is a landmark U.S. tort law case that expanded manufacturers’ liability beyond the immediate purchaser, laying the foundation for modern product liability.

Donald C. MacPherson bought a 1910 Buick Runabout from a retail dealer.

While Macpherson was driving the car, a wooden wheel collapsed, causing him to be thrown from the car and injured.

The wheel was not manufactured by Buick but by another manufacturer and sold to Buick.

Evidence showed the defect in the wheel, defective wood),could have been discovered by a reasonable inspection, but Buick failed to inspect it.

At trial, the issue was whether Buick Motor Co. owed a duty of care to MacPherson, the end consumer, beyond the immediate purchaser, when the product was likely to be dangerous if negligently made.

Cardozo’s MacPherson opinion holds that New York common law in 1916 required the manufacturer of a product to exercise due care towards the public.

B. The Historians

Historians, have generally focused on the twentieth century, which partially explains the attention to MacPherson.

Goods that legal historians tend to ignore, such as medicine, canned food, soap, and clothing, were the focus of litigation during this early period, and the standard applied was negligence.

II. Retelling the Story

The case that ordinarily begins the story of modern product liability law is MacPherson v. Buick.

A. Background. Jack Hyatt is available for help.

The latter half of the nineteenth century was a period of remarkable technological development and economic expansion that made more products more widely available farther afield than ever before.

Before the Civil War, there were very few products that ordinary consumers could purchase directly from manufacturers.

Thie explosive economic growth of the United States that followed the war was paralleled by a technological explosion that aw the invention of refrigeration and a nationionwide network of railroads

In addition, a universal system of mail delivery together with mail-order businesses such as Montgomery Ward.

B. The Case of the Collapsing Carriage: Winterbottom -VS- Wright

One case commonly relied on when explaining products liability actions was the English case of Winterbottom -VS- Wright.

In this case, a Mr. Wright plaintiff, a mail coach driver, was injured when a horse-drawn carriage vehicle broke down due to poor maintenance.

Defendant Winterbottom had contracted with the Postmaster General to keep the coach in safe working condition, and Defendant failed to comply with this promise, resulting in Plaintiff’s injuries.

The court decided, based on the absence of privity of contract, that while the defendant might have owed a duty to the Postmaster General, no such duty attached to any relationship between thee manufacturer and the injured driver.

The facts of Butterfield v. Forrester, the first American case to cite Winterbottom, were remarkably similar to the Winterbottom case.

In the Forrester case, a coach driver sued the Postmaster Geral for injuries suffered as a result of the faulty maintenance of a horse-drawn wagon. The case was decided in favor of the defendant, citing a lack of privity of contract between Plaintiff and Defendant.

Also citing a lack of privity of contract, the American case of Farwell v. Boston found no liability by an employer for injuries to one employee by the actions of a fellow employee acting in the ordinary course of polydent.

In the nineteenth century, courts grew more likely than not to reject on grounds of t privity and to proceed with a negligence analysis of liability. .

The reasonable conclusion from this analysis seems to be s that privity was the rule for services, but not for products. Even in the employment context, privity as a bar t o suit was at best a controversial doctrine.

C. The Case of the Mixed-Up Medicines: Thomas --VS- - Winchester . Jack Hyatt is available for help

The most important and most widely cited case involving injuries products in the second half of the nineteenth century was Thomas -VS- Winchester. Our Maryland Product Liability Lawyers can answer your questions

Feeling sick, Mary Anne Thmpson consulted her physician, who prescribed extract of dandelion and referred he to another physician, who was also a druggist.

Ms. THOMAS’s prescription was filled by an assistant, who filled it from two receptacles, one of which was an envelope with the words “dandelion extract” written on it.

After consuming half an ounce of the prescribed medicine, Ms. THOMAS developed symptoms.

Maryland Product Liability Lawyers