The laws of product liability are governed by “res ipsa loquitur” a doctrine that shifts the burden of proof in product liability litigation to the defendant or the defendants. The doctrine translates to ‘the thing speaks for itself’ – it indicates that the product defect that is the question in issue would not have existed if negligence did not take place because of someone. If this doctrine is effectively invoked, the plaintiff does not have to prove the negligence of the defendant. The defendant, on the other hand, has to prove that the action was not negligent.
An insight into the legal term ‘strict liability’
Strict liability is a second rule that aids the plaintiff in cases that pertain to product liability. If the rules of strict liability are applied, the plaintiff does not require to prove that the manufacturer has been negligent; however, when the product has been defective. With the elimination of the issues of manufacturer faults, the no-fault concept or the legal term of “strict” liability permits plaintiff to receive the compensation where they would in other circumstances might not!
Unsafe products that is unavoidable
Some products cannot be safe without losing their usefulness. For instance, an electric knife that is blunt to injure a person is rendered useless for its specific purpose. There is a general belief that pertains to the above products where consumers and users for minimizing risks of the product. Therefore, a product might not be deemed dangerous by unreasonable means provided suppliers, or manufacturers provide warnings of the risks and the dangers of the products they sell helping the consumer to make informed choices when it comes to selling their products.
What are the general defenses to claims relating to product liability?
The major defense claims in cases that pertain to product liability is the plaintiff has not adequately identified the product supplier that is the cause of the injury. The plaintiff needs to connect with the party or the parties with the product who are accountable for supplying or manufacturing the product. However, esteemed lawyers in the field of product liability say that there is an exception to the said rule that is called market share liability exception and it covers defective medications. Here, the plaintiff is not able to recognize which pharmaceutical company supplied the said drug taken. Each manufacturer is held accountable as per the sales percentage in the region where the above injury had taken place.
There is another defense that lays down the fact that a plaintiff caused product alterations after it leaves the control of the manufacturer. Here, the alteration in the product is the major cause of injury. A related defense is the plaintiff has misused the product in some way and is the cause of the injury suffered. A good lawyer in the field of product liability will analyze every detail and aspect of the case to provide you with the correct legal course of action for the litigation filed in court.
