Dangerous products cause thousands of injuries and deaths each year.  Consumer and Household products are the most common cause of product related injuries.  Industrial accidents, despite significant safety advances, occur more frequently than they should.

Product Liability law is comprised of several legal theories.  If a product is defective, the manufacturer can be held strictly liable for any injuries caused by the product, provided that the product was being used as intended.  Product defects include manufacturing defects and design defects. 

An example of a manufacturing defect would be a failed weld that causes an axle on a forklift to break free. Assuming the product was designed properly, and a similar weld held in all other instances, the defect in the manufacturing process could result in liability on the part of the manufacturer. 

An example of a design defect under a similar fact pattern, could be the failure tof the manufacturer to design the forklift axle assembly to include a clamp or bolt to secure the axle in the event of a weld failure.

Warranty law, which we are all familiar with in the sales setting, such as a repair warranty in the event of product failure, also covers injury claims.  In addition to written warranties, the laws of New Jersey and New York include implied warranties of fitness for purpose and merchantability. 

Fitness for purpose means that the product should be capable of doing what it is supposed to do.  A bicycle chain that falls off every half mile the bicycle is riden, is not a bicycle fit for the purpose intended. 

The warranty of mechantability refers to the quality of a product being sold by a merchant.  The merchant, by selling the product, implies that it is of similar quality to that of similar products.  For example, a Rigid drill sold at Home Depot should be of the same quality as a similar Black & Decker drill sold at the local hardware store.  

The buyer's expectations of the product are important in assessing warranty claims.  Courts will often look at what a typical, or reasonable, buyer would expect, and not necessarily focus on the actual buyer. 

Warranty claims for injuries, and product liability claims based on design and manufacturing defects, can be brought by the ultimate user of the product, and are not in any way limited to the buyer of the product.

Another area of product liability law involves product warnings.  Manufacturers often have a dilemna when it comes to product warnings.  They are often sued for failing to provide warnings.  When they do provide warnings, it is often argued that the warnings are either inadequate, difficult to read, or don't apply to the actual defect that caused the accident.

A product liability claim based strictly on a failure to warn theory, or inadequate warnings, is the weakest type of product liability claim, and recovery is often difficult, despite what one might read in the newspaper.  Warnings such as "don't use a lawnmower at night" are not only obvious to the person reading them, they are obvious to potential jurors.

The strongest claims often involve failure to provide guards or safety devices that would have prevented the injury.  Tragically, in many situations the manufacturer has already developed or is aware of the type of guard or safety feature the victim's expert says would have prevented the accident or minimized the injuries.  In some instances, the manufacturer already offers the feature in products sold overseas.