11.3 Defenses in Products Liability Cases

Products liability cases involve complex defenses that manufacturers can use to avoid or limit liability. These defenses include state of the art, assumption of risk, product misuse, comparative fault, and statutes of limitations and repose. Each defense has specific elements and varying effectiveness depending on the circumstances.

Understanding these defenses is crucial for both manufacturers and consumers. They balance consumer protection with encouraging innovation, promote responsible product use, and consider fairness and economic efficiency. However, defenses shouldn't undermine legitimate claims for genuinely defective products that cause harm.

Defenses in Products Liability Cases

Common defenses in products liability

Top images from around the web for Common defenses in products liability

• 

  Risk Management - Clipboard image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  16. Risk Management Planning – Project Management View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  20-1-2-1-Risk-and-Impact – Project Management View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Risk Management - Clipboard image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  16. Risk Management Planning – Project Management View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Common defenses in products liability

• 

  Risk Management - Clipboard image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  16. Risk Management Planning – Project Management View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  20-1-2-1-Risk-and-Impact – Project Management View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Risk Management - Clipboard image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  16. Risk Management Planning – Project Management View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• State of the art defense argues the product met industry standards at the time of manufacture and any defect was not known or reasonably discoverable given the scientific knowledge available (asbestos in building materials before health risks were known)
• Assumption of risk asserts the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly encountered the risk, understanding and appreciating the danger involved (using a chainsaw without protective gear)
• Product misuse contends the product was used in an unintended or unforeseeable manner and this misuse was the proximate cause of the injury (using a kitchen knife as a screwdriver resulting in injury)
• Comparative fault argues the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injury, potentially reducing damages based on the plaintiff's percentage of fault (not wearing a seatbelt in a car accident)
• Statute of limitations requires the claim to be filed within a specified time period after the injury occurred or the defect was discovered, barring claims filed too late (filing a claim 5 years after an injury from a defective product when the statute of limitations is 2 years)
• Statute of repose bars claims after a specified period from the product's sale or manufacture, regardless of when the injury occurred, providing a strict cutoff for liability (a 10-year statute of repose on a machine that causes injury 12 years after manufacture)

Elements of specific liability defenses

• State of the art defense elements:
  1. The product met industry standards at the time of manufacture
  2. The defect was not reasonably discoverable given the scientific knowledge available
• Useful for defects not known at the time of manufacture but less effective if industry standards were inadequate or the defect was foreseeable (asbestos use after health risks became known)
• Assumption of risk defense elements:
  1. The plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly encountered the risk
  2. The plaintiff understood and appreciated the danger involved
• Effective when the plaintiff was clearly aware of and accepted the risk but less so if the risk was not obvious or the plaintiff lacked appreciation of the danger (using a hairdryer near water without understanding the electrocution risk)
• Product misuse defense elements:
  1. The product was used in an unintended or unforeseeable manner
  2. The misuse was the proximate cause of the injury
• Successful when the product was used in a way not intended by the manufacturer and this misuse solely caused the injury, but less effective if the misuse was foreseeable or not the primary cause (using a laptop on a bed leading to overheating and fire risk)

Effectiveness of defenses in scenarios

• State of the art defense is most effective when:
  • Industry standards were clearly followed
  • The defect was genuinely not reasonably discoverable at the time
• Less effective if:
  • Industry standards were inadequate to ensure product safety
  • The defect was actually foreseeable based on available knowledge
• Assumption of risk is highly effective when:
  • The plaintiff had clear knowledge and understanding of the specific risk
  • The plaintiff voluntarily chose to encounter the known danger
• Less effective if:
  • The risk was not obvious or apparent to the plaintiff
  • The plaintiff did not fully appreciate the nature and extent of the danger
• Product misuse is strongly applicable when:
  • The misuse was entirely unforeseeable by the manufacturer
  • The misuse was the sole and direct cause of the plaintiff's injury
• Less effective if:
  • The misuse was reasonably foreseeable based on the product's nature
  • The misuse was not the primary cause of the injury and other factors contributed

Policy considerations for liability defenses

• Balancing consumer protection and manufacturer liability
  • Liability defenses help prevent excessive and unreasonable liability for manufacturers, encouraging socially beneficial innovation and product development (3D printing technology)
  • However, defenses should not undermine consumer protection by allowing manufacturers to avoid responsibility for genuinely defective and dangerous products (ignition switch defects in vehicles)
• Encouraging responsible consumer behavior
  • Defenses like assumption of risk and product misuse incentivize consumers to use products safely and as intended, promoting personal responsibility for known and voluntarily encountered risks (ignoring clear warning labels on products)
  • But manufacturers should still be liable for defects that pose unreasonable dangers to even responsible consumers (unexpected battery explosions in phones)
• Fairness and reasonableness considerations
  • Liability defenses ensure that manufacturers are not unjustly held liable for unforeseeable or unreasonable circumstances truly beyond their control (a product used in an extremely unusual and unpredictable way causing injury)
  • Defenses should not, however, allow manufacturers to escape liability for defects they could have reasonably prevented or discovered (inadequate product testing before release)
• Economic efficiency and cost balancing
  • Liability defenses can help limit the cost of products by reducing the potential liability manufacturers face, which may make socially valuable products more affordable and accessible (life-saving medical devices)
  • However, the economic benefits of liability limitations must be balanced against the need to fairly compensate injured consumers and incentivize product safety (defective and dangerous products removed from the market)