Unit 4

A MANUFACTURER'S GUIDE TO PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW IN THE UNITED STATES

Preface to Third Edition

  • The product liability landscape has significantly evolved since this book's initial publication in 1991.

  • Constant changes in laws and litigation practices necessitated this third edition.

  • Key developments since the second edition (1999) include:

    • Evolving tactics and strategies of plaintiffs’ counsel.

    • The advent of electronic discovery.

    • The introduction of caps on punitive damages, which were previously a distant hope for manufacturers.

    • Few federal preemption victories.

  • Anticipation of future developments, hinting at a potential fourth edition within the next decade.

Foreword

  • The authors are lawyers specializing in defending manufacturers in product liability lawsuits.

  • They emphasize a crucial lesson: manufacturers face substantial challenges in litigation partly because key personnel lack understanding of product liability law.

  • Consequences of ignorance lead to errors that adversely affect lawsuit outcomes and increase damages awarded.

  • Purpose of the guide is to provide fundamental information about product liability law and litigation, especially for nonlegal personnel in manufacturing.

  • Discusses product liability exposure reduction measures and suggests the guide's use in corporate training programs.

  • Importance of education for managers and decision-makers who influence design, literature, and product improvements, and may testify in court.

Introduction

  • Notable increase in lawsuits related to defective products and significant damages awarded to plaintiffs.

  • Common observation: manufacturers often settle claims even if a product is not defective due to high costs and burden of litigation.

  • Disturbing cases illustrate unjust outcomes where manufacturers are held liable despite consumer misuse of products.

  • The case example:

    • Involves a man injured while misusing a cotton-picking machine against clear safety guidelines.

    • Court sided with the plaintiff despite manufacturer’s argument against liability.

  • Emphasizes the need for manufacturers to anticipate misuse and design for safety accordingly.

  • Importance of manufacturer employee education to limit harmful actions during litigation.

  • Overview of contents:

    • Chapter 1: Basic concepts of product liability law.

    • Chapter 2: Structure of product liability lawsuits.

    • Chapter 3: Measures to reduce liability exposure.

    • Appendix includes sample jury instructions, document freeze memorandum, requests for production, and glossary.

Chapter 1: Product Liability Law

  • No uniform 'United States product liability law': Each state has differing laws shaped by courts and legislatures.

  • Liability: Defined by the circumstances and laws governing the injury caused by a product.

    • Plaintiff: who initiates the lawsuit.

    • Defendant: who the lawsuit is against.

Legal Theories of Liability
  • Negligence: Manufacturers are responsible for injuries due to negligence by themselves or their employees.

    • Example: An electrical appliance manufacturer liable for injury due to negligence in safety during production.

  • Breach of Warranty: Manufacturers are liable if a product fails to meet promised standards causing injury.

    • Can arise from express written warranties or implied warranties from the suitability for use.

    • Claimants traditionally preferred breach of warranty claims as they were easier to prove.

  • Strict Liability: Most states employ strict liability for defective products, establishing manufacturer accountability.

    • Section 402A of the American Law Institute states:

    • Seller liable for a product that is defective and unreasonably dangerous to consumers.

    • Liability exists even if due care was exercised or if there was no contractual relationship with the consumer.

    • Plaintiff must prove defectiveness existed at the time of product delivery and caused injury.

Types of Defects
  1. Manufacturing Defect: Product not built per specifications, leading to safety issues.

  2. Design Defect: A lack of clear standards makes this complex; risk-benefit analysis often applies.

    • Consumer expectations test determining if a product is more dangerous than expected.

  3. Warning/Instruction Defect: Inadequate warnings leading to misuse or failure to provide safe usage instructions.

    • Various regulations exist for drug warnings only directed to prescribing professionals (learned intermediary rule).

The Third Restatement
  • Highlights significant changes, moving away from consumer expectations for design defects.

  • Calls for objective evaluations proving alternative designs could lessen foreseeable risks.

  • Not considered law until embraced by states' courts.

Proof of Defect
  • Normal Requirements for Plaintiffs: Must prove defectiveness, existence at the time of delivery, and causation.

    • Evidence categories may include expert opinions, injuries from similar products, and manufacturing standards violations.

  • Government/Industry Standards: Evidence of a product failing to meet standards could establish liability.

Who Is Liable for a Product Defect?

  • Liability typically extends through the product distribution chain, from manufacturer to retailer.

  • Exception: Occasional sellers are only liable for their own negligence.

  • Liability for generic products can lead to collective responsibility based on market share in some jurisdictions.

Defenses to Liability
  • Plaintiff's Carelessness or Misuse: Varies between states as a bar or partial defense.

  • Alteration or Misuse by Others: Liability could remain if alteration was foreseeable or preventable.

  • Passage of Time: Statutes of limitations restrict the time frame to file claims, and defenses vary significantly.

  • Contract Provisions: May limit liability but must adhere to state laws, especially in government contracts.

Damages

  • Compensatory Damages: Intended to compensate loss incurred for injuries.

  • Classification:

    • Economic Losses: Include lost earnings and medical expenses.

    • Noneconomic Losses: Pertains to pain, suffering, or loss of relationship.

  • Survival and Wrongful Death Actions: Distinguish between claims of the deceased's estate and the surviving family members, allowing recovery for various economic and noneconomic damages.

Sample Verdicts

  • Includes various case examples where plaintiffs won claims against manufacturers with detailed monetary variations.

Joint and Several Liability

  • Underpins that each liable party can be responsible for the entire damages awarded.

  • Problems arise when one party bears significant financial distress relative to others.

Conflicting State Laws

  • Challenges in multi-state operations requiring courts to determine applicable laws navigating varying regulations.

The Product Liability Lawsuit

  • Filing Process: Emergency filing of a complaint and summons to initiate a lawsuit.

  • Defense Strategies: Involves personal jurisdiction, venue considerations, and timely responses.

Discovery Phase
  • Mechanisms established for information sharing, including interrogatories and deposits.

  • Electronic discovery highlights the burdens and costs involved, especially regarding the technology used.

  • Spoliation: Acknowledge duties to preserve relevant documentation potentially damaging to defense.

Reducing Product Liability Exposure

  • Strategies must be woven throughout the design, manufacturing, and post-accident responses to mitigate risks.

  • Product Liability Prevention Manager: Their role focuses primarily on coordinating education programs addressing product liability implications.

  • Documentation and Written Records: Emphasis on maintaining comprehensive records while being wary of the content's legal implications.

  • Design and Marketing: Includes diligence in crafting product descriptions, warnings, and adhering to regulations.

  • Insurance Considerations: Regular review of coverage adequacy against potential product liabilities.

Conclusion

  • Emphasis that understanding these principles can guard against unduly severe outcomes due to wrongful assessments or misunderstandings within the processes.