Common Defenses Against Product Liability Claims
Any product liability case has the potential to be quite serious. After all, if a seller or manufacturer sells a defective product to a customer and the company is held liable for doing so, the company could face serious legal consequences. Additionally, defective products can sometimes actually prove dangerous to the physical health of the customers. Because of this, sellers and manufacturers use several defenses to protect themselves from product liability claims. Keep reading to learn more about some common defenses companies use in product liability cases.
One Common Defense is That the Plaintiff Failed to Identify the Product’s Supplier Sufficiently
After speaking to a product liability attorney, one defense that companies commonly use in product liability cases is that the plaintiff has not sufficiently identified the product’s supplier. This is a common defense in product liability cases because it is often quite a useful strategy. It can be difficult to properly identify the parties that supplied or manufactured the defective product. The plaintiff must connect said parties with the defective product that supposedly caused an injury. The exception to this rule is applicable in cases centered around defective medications.
That exception is called the market share liability exception. If a plaintiff cannot figure out which of the pharmaceutical companies that supply people with a certain drug supplied the drug that they took, each manufacturer will be legally liable according to its sales percentage in the area where the injury happened. It is important to keep this exception in mind any time that you are discussing a product liability case that involves defective medications.
The Manufacturer Might Argue that the Plaintiff Significantly Altered the Product and Got Injured Due to this Alteration
Another common defense the manufacturer could use is that the plaintiff altered the product significantly after taking it from the manufacturer’s control. This defense further claims that this alteration led to the plaintiff’s injury, not the product on its own. At that point, the manufacturer will argue the product was so different from its base form that they cannot be held liable for the injury.
This defense could work depending on the details of the specific product liability case. Naturally, the manufacturer must prove that the plaintiff significantly altered the product for this defense to be successful. If the manufacturer cannot prove that, using this defense is probably not the best idea.
A Third Common Defense is that the Plaintiff Misused the Product, and This Misuse Led to the Injury
You have probably seen the phrase ‘use as intended’ or ‘when used as intended’ on various products. This ties into one more common defense that manufacturers use in product liability cases. The manufacturer can argue that the plaintiff misused the product in a way that could not be foreseen and that that misuse caused injuries to the plaintiff. Once again, the manufacturer would have to prove that the plaintiff did misuse the product. Still, you should know that it is a common defense that manufacturers use when facing product liability claims.
