What is Product Liability?
Product liability refers to the accountability of a merchant, business, or manufacturer for bodily injury or property damage caused by a defect in their product.
According to the Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell Law School, product liability is defined as “the legal liability of manufacturers, distributors, and sellers to compensate consumers, users, and bystanders for damages or injuries caused by defective products.” As such, the term refers to the legal responsibility of manufacturers, retailers, and other parties involved in the supply chain for injuries or damages caused by defective or unsafe products. It encompasses the legal principles and rules governing liability for products that fail to meet safety standards or perform as expected, resulting in harm to consumers or users.
Product defects that may give rise to product liability can induce design, manufacturing, or labeling defects. Navigating product liability for such defective products involves proving that a product was defective, establishing causation between the defect and the injury, and demonstrating damages suffered by the plaintiff. Legal remedies may include compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
More information about Product Liability
New Jersey Man Receives $2 Million in Yamaha Snowmobile Accident
The Daily Record reports a Sparta man will receive $2 million from Yamaha following a snowmobile accident. The judge added $900,000 to the $1.1 million award from the jury.
In February of 2005, when the now 61-year-old man borrowed his friend’s 1995 Yamaha VX600V-R snowmobile, the engine started to hesitate. While he and another friend lifted the rear of the snowmobile, the owner revved the engine with the throttle in an effort to clear the spark plugs. The metal track broke and shot out of the rear of the snowmobile and ripped through the victim’s right leg.
Efforts to save the 75 percent severed leg were not successful, and the man’s leg was amputated above the knee a few days after the accident.
In the product liability trial, the jury awarded $1,107,000 for pain and suffering, economic losses, and medical expenses. […]
Read MoreMore information about Product Liability
Escalator Injury Involving Crocs Leads to Multimillion-Dollar Lawsuit
According to Knoxnews.com, the father of a 4-year-old girl whose foot was mangled in an escalator because she was wearing the popular shoe by Crocs, Inc. has settled his multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the company.
In 2006, the Colorado-based company began receiving complaints from parents over the rubber shoes and related escalator injuries. Studies have shown Crocs and their imitators “appear to be prone to entrapment when pressed against the (side) skirt guard of step riser while standing on the yellow line of an escalator.” Children are at greater risk because their shoes are smaller and thinner.
To the lawsuit was attached a letter by Crocs stating it intended to place warning tags on its shoes by Christmas 2006. It didn’t. Since that time there have been hundreds of accidents which may have been avoided had the warning been put on the shoes.
Injuries range from a bloody sock to severed toes. […]
Read MoreMore information about Product Liability
Graco Drop Side Cribs Recalled Due to Entrapment and Suffocation Hazards
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and LaJobi announced a voluntary recall of 217,000 Graco®-branded drop side cribs. The recall includes Graco drop side wood cribs sold throughout the United States from February 2007 through March 2010. Owners of these cribs should stop using any of the recalled products immediately.
When a product is not safe and fails to contain an adequate warning, and you or a family member suffers personal injury, or death, as a result of these defects, you may be entitled to legal relief. You should be able to trust that the product you are using is safe and that you have been given proper warning of any risks the product poses. At Munley, Munley & Cartwright we understand the complexity of product liability laws and the challenge of proving a case, and we can help you get the compensation you deserve. […]
Read MoreMore information about Product Liability
Family of City Worker Killed In Mower Accident Settles Lawsuit
A confidential last-minute settlement has been reached in the lawsuit brought by the family of a city Parks Department employee who was killed in 2003 by a runaway lawnmower, reports the Telegram & Gazette of Worcester, Mass.
Industrial and agricultural accidents can occur for a variety of reasons. One of the leading causes, however, is a manufacturing or design defect that makes heavy machinery dangerous to users. You should be able to trust that the product you are using is safe and that you have been given proper warning of any risks the product poses. At Munley Law we understand the complexity of product liability laws and the challenge of proving a case, and we can help you get the compensation you deserve.
The 54-year-old man died from injuries he sustained when he was run over by a 6,000 lb. large capacity mower as it rolled down a hill. […]
Read MoreMore information about Product Liability
Wisconsin Court Rules In Favor of Medtronic In Product Liability Case
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, following a U.S. Supreme Court decision, has ruled patients cannot sue the maker of a potentially unsafe medical device approved for sale by the FDA.
A suit was brought against Minneapolis-based Medtronic, Inc. by a man who had his defibrillator surgically removed after the company warned its battery could fail. The defibrillator was implanted in 2004 to try to prevent his heart from stopping.
The next year, Medtronic warned the devices’ batteries might fail in 1 out of 10,000 patients. The company knew of the problem more than two years earlier but kept selling the defective defibrillator, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The FDA did not order a recall nor did it withdraw its 2002 approval.
The Wisconsin decision was not unanimous. Two of the justices warned, “the decision leaves Wisconsin residents at the mercy of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, […]
Read More
