|
Product
Liability
Every year, tens of thousands of people
claim injury or death as a result of
flawed and unsafe products. It may be
complex commercial tools and equipment
or simple retail products. But could the
manufacturer or seller really have
prevented the alleged injuries? Michigan
courts have long held that manufacturers
are not insurers that in every instance
and under all circumstances that no
injury will result from the use of their
products.
An injured person must show that the
product was defective. Plaintiffs
commonly attempt to establish the
existence of a defect by alleging
negligent design, negligent manufacture,
negligent failure to warn, breach of an
express or implied warranty, or
misrepresentation or fraud about the
product. But in Michigan, these are not
easy hurdles to overcome.
The lawyers at MacArthur, MacArthur &
Associates, P.C. have been handling
product liability cases for decades. We
have significantly limited defendants’
liabilities in product liability
litigation. We can help you as well - by
developing solid defenses to plaintiffs’
allegations of injuries from defective
products.
Negligent Design
In 1996, the Product Liability Act was
amended to require proof that both the
product was unreasonably dangerous at
the time it left the manufacturer’s
control and that a practical and
technically feasible alternative design
was available at the time of production.
This amendment has made it significantly
more difficult for plaintiff’s to
establish negligent design - provided
that the defenses are properly developed
during the discovery process.
Negligent Manufacture
A plaintiff will commonly allege that
his or her injuries were the result of a
negligently manufactured product. The
plaintiff must show that the
manufacturer failed to do what a
reasonable manufacturer would have done
in the production of the product. Where
there are differences between the
subject product and the product in its
intended condition, it is imperative for
you to have attorneys that will
investigate other causes for the changes
in the product - including failure to
maintain, modification of the product by
the user or misuse by the user.
Negligent Failure to Warn
The revisions to the Product Liability
Statute in 1996 significantly limited
defendants’ duty to warn of risks that
should be obvious to a reasonably
prudent product user or that are matters
of common knowledge to persons in the
same or similar position as the
plaintiff. The amendments also provided
that manufacturers and sellers are not
liable for the failure to warn or to
instruct unless the plaintiff can prove
that the manufacturer knew or should
have known of the risk of harm based on
the scientific, technical, or medical
information reasonably available when
the product left its control.
Manufacturers and seller are likewise
not liable for failure to provide a
warning to a sophisticated user, unless
a warning is required by state or
federal statute or regulation. This
amendment has made it significantly more
difficult for plaintiff’s to establish
negligent failure to warn - if the
defenses are properly worked up during
discovery.
Breach of Implied or Express Warranty
To establish a cause of action for
breach of implied warranty, a plaintiff
must prove that the product was not fit
for its intended and reasonably
foreseeable purposes, that is, that the
product was defective. While plaintiffs
technically do not have to prove
negligence under this theory, the
existence of a defective condition is
measured by a negligence standard
–thereby imposing the same difficulties
for plaintiff as the negligent design
and negligent manufacture causes of
action.
An express warranty is a representation
or statement, made in writing, orally or
by any other means, by a manufacturer or
seller that his or her product has
certain characteristics or will meet
certain standards. However, not every
statement that is made about a product
is part of an express warranty. A
statement of opinion which cannot
reasonably be believed or relied upon
has been deemed to be sales talk and not
a representation of an express warranty.
Misrepresentation and Fraud
To establish misrepresentation or fraud,
a plaintiff must prove that the
defendant made a material
representation, that the representation
was false, that the defendant knew it
was false or made it recklessly, and the
defendant intended that the plaintiff
would act on it, that the plaintiff
acted in reliance on it, and that the
plaintiff suffered an injury.
Alleging misrepresentation and fraud can
be tempting because the recoverable
damages may be greatly expanded and even
include exemplary damages.
Tailor-Made Discovery
With all these theories of liability –
each with its own peculiarities - you
need an experienced produce liability
law firm. The lawyers at MacArthur,
MacArthur & Associates, P.C. have been
doing just that for more than 30 years.
Since there are no boilerplate models
for discovery in product liability
cases, we’ll recommend an efficient,
effective and tailor-made plan for
discovery that will result in the lowest
possible exposure for you.
Traditional Defenses and Limitation
of Damages
In addition to the traditional defenses
to the plaintiffs claim that the product
was the cause in fact and the proximate
cause of the injuries he or she
sustained, there are issues of
comparative negligence, assumption of
the risk, Federal preemption, and the
sophisticated user defense.
Even if the plaintiff is able to
establish a prima facie products
liability case, damages for noneconomic
loss in a product liability actions are
limited pursuant to MCL 600.2946a(1).
We’re the Right Choice for You
Indeed, with the numerous hurdles that a
plaintiff must overcome and the
plentiful defenses that exist for
defendants, your Michigan product
liability case requires a thorough
analysis to ensure your exposure is
properly limited or eliminated. Contact
the attorneys at MacArthur, MacArthur &
Associates, P.C. for a consultation
today.
|
