What Must Be Proven In A Defective Product Liability Claim?

Some consumers have experienced a close call, after buying a product that contained some sort of defect. A few of those same consumers then tried to file a product liability claim. They did not succeed with their attempt, because they lacked all the needed proofs.

What proofs must be produced by someone with a product liability claim?

Evidence that someone was injured or suffered a loss, due to the presence of the reported defect. It does not work to say “I almost got hurt.” There must be a true injury or the loss of some piece of property.

Personal injury lawyer in Cornwall needs evidence that a given product was defective. If the defect was known to exist, why had the manufacturer not arranged for placement of a warning sign? If the defective feature had not been recognized, was that a failure of the company’s quality control department? If not, then who was responsible for the failure to identify that one defect?

Did the defect’s presence explain the fact that a consumer got injured, while using this one product? Did the product cause the injury? Some products, such as a knife, can be harmful, if not used properly. Yet a knife’s sharp blade does not count as a defect. Because the dangerous nature of that blade has been recognized, it cannot count as a defective feature.

If a toy meant for toddlers contained some small parts, that could prove dangerous. A small child might try to swallow such a part. That could injure the child’s digestive system. Consequently, the maker of the toy could be held liable for the harm done to the affected child.

Was the product used in the way that the manufacturer intended it to be used? Were there any instructions on the package, or inside of the package? Did the consumer follow those directions? In the absence of directions, the manufacturer could still have a winning defense.

A common, everyday product normally has a well-identified use. Still, there might be similar, yet reasonable uses. If a consumer got injured attempting a reasonable use, the manufacturer could be held liable for any injuries.

On the other hand, it could be that the consumer chose to experiment with a use that did not fall under the category of “reasonable.” Any consumers that attempt to carry-out an unreasonable and new function have no basis for a product liability claim. The manufacturer’s recommendations, regarding the way to use a given product had been ignored.

For instance, a maker of swords would never suggest that someone ought to try swallowing a sword. If someone did try to be a sword-swallower and then got hurt, that same person could not sue the maker of that long and sharp product.