Certain legal theories apply to claims made for an injury that was caused by a defective product.
Legal names for the different theories
• Strict liability: Plaintiffs that allege strict liability do not need to show that the defendant acted carelessly.
• Negligence: Plaintiffs that allege negligence on the part of the defendant must offer proof for the existence of all the elements of negligence.
• Breach of warranty: This could involve the breaching of a written warranty, or of an implied one.
Each theory demands proof of the fact that the defect existed.
If it had been a design defect, then the plaintiff would have to show that a safer design existed, or that it could have been created, without putting the product’s creator at an unreasonable risk.
If it had been a manufacturing defect, then the plaintiff would have to show that an error had occurred at some point within the factory.
If it had been a marketing defect, then the plaintiff would be expected to show one of 2 things
—The marketer had failed to place a suitable warning on the product
—The marketer had failed to provide the product’s user with clear instructions.
Other proofs that must come from the plaintiff
Proof that the product had caused a real injury. In the past, some consumers have tried to win a product liability claim, after finding that a defective item almost harmed them. Their lack of the essential proof, a proof for the existence of a real injury, kept them from winning their claim.
Proof that the consumer had used the defective item in the way that it was supposed to be used. Consumers should know that there are times when physicians have found that a given medication has worked as a remedy for a different condition. Doctors can use it for that alternative condition, if clinical tests have provided support for the physician’s original observations.
More about errors within a factory
While a factory worker could have introduced an error as a given item passed down the assembly line, not all errors can be traced to the manufacturing facility, which exists within the factory.
The manufacturing plant should also house a division that is supposed to exam each completed item, as per personal injury lawyer in Fremont. The workers in that same division are supposed to identify any potential problem, so that the consumer does not get exposed to that specific defect.
A mistake that might have been made in that particular division would qualify as a manufacturing defect. A plaintiff in a product liability case should not overlook the chance that the error had its origins in the manufacturing plant, but not at a point along any type of assembly line.
