Strict product liability means holding the manufacturer or seller of defective products responsible if the product injures a consumer who buys or uses the product. The courts impose liability for personal injury and property damage caused by products that are defectively designed or manufactured.
Various defenses are available to manufacturers or sellers in products liability lawsuits. These defenses include contributory negligence (the consumer’s own actions caused the injury), comparative negligence (the consumer’s damages are reduced in proportion to the percentage of his or her fault), assumption of risk (the consumer knew about the defect but continued to use the product anyway), and product misuse.
To be considered product misuse, some courts hold that the consumer’s use has to be one that the manufacturer could not have intended, expected or anticipated. In other words, the use of a product will not bar recovery if the use was reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer. Foreseeability depends upon the intended and actual uses of the product, which are well known to the manufacturer and the general public. For example, while a screwdriver is not intended to be used to open a paint can, a consumer’s use of a screwdriver to open a paint can is something that a manufacturer could or should have anticipated. Such use would not be considered misuse. If the consumer were injured while using the screwdriver to open the paint can, the defense of product misuse would not prevent recovery for the injuries.
Some courts have held that the consumer’s misuse or improper use of a product frees the manufacturer or seller of any liability. For example, the misuse of a product is a complete defense in Indiana, which bars a products liability claim. Other courts have held that the consumer’s misuse or improper use of a product reduces the amount of damages the consumer can recover.
In some states, the courts have held that product misuse is an affirmative defense for which the manufacturer or seller has the burden of proof. Other courts hold that the product misuse defense is not an affirmative defense, which means the manufacturer or seller does not have the burden of proving misuse. Instead, the consumer bears the burden of disproving product misuse.
Our family worked with Joe Hartle to finalize the adoption of our daughter last fall. So while we were not the typical client of this firm, we still had a great experience. Joe is the best, was so friendly, easy to work with and made us feel very special during…
Attorney Scott helped me with my car accident case. I highly recommend Attorney Scott. He was very good about explaining things to me, and I am very happy with the results. Thank you!
Attorney Lafferty handled my car accident vs. pedestrian case. Very happy with the service and representation he provided. Great result!
Attorney Scott was wonderful in his representation of me for my car accident.
I was represented by Joe Hartle, who did a great job with my auto accident claim. Very happy with the end result.
Highly recommended. The attorneys are very knowledgeable, helpful, and friendly. They did an outstanding job representing us after a terrible car accident caused us serious injuries.
Joe Hartle represented us in a wrongful death case involving a semi-truck. He did an outstanding job during a very trying time in our life. Thank you!
Excellent service all the way around. Happy to recommend Lafferty Gallagher & Scott
Very professional and informative. Thank you to Attorney Jon Lafferty.
Excellent service from Mickey Scott. Thank you!