Most such claims respect the view created by the concept of “strict liability.” That concept describes a specific view of the claim’s anticipated outcome, as per personal injury lawyer in Amherst.
A combined effort allows for product creation
• Designers contribute their efforts
• Manufacturers contribute their efforts
• Distributors and sellers contribute their efforts
What that combined effort means for the issue of liability
Each contributor could be held liable for any product-related injury. The liability assigned to any contributor could not be removed, following disclosure of the same contributor’s acceptable behavior.
What plaintiff must show, in order to win a defective product case?
The product was unsafe from the time that it had been designed, manufactured or sold. The plaintiff would not have to provide details on how the product’s safety level had been reduced.
The seller had not anticipated the introduction of any changes, before the product’s placement on a store shelf, or changes in a package that was being shipped to an online consumer. The plaintiff had been injured while using the purchased or delivered product.
Possible defenses in court cases where the concept of strict liability would govern the judge’s ruling
The method chosen for the product’s utilization did not match with its intended use.
—In order for this defense to work, the plaintiff’s method for utilizing the defective item must be decidedly different from its intended use.
—This defense might work, if the method-of-utilization for the purchaser of a rose clipper had involved cutting electric wires. It would not work if a consumer had used a pair of rose clippers to cut some zinnias.
The plaintiff’s own actions helped to cause the customer’s injury
—This defensive strategy could be used if the purchaser of the defective item had failed to follow the directions that had been enclosed in the item’s packaging.
—-The effectiveness of this defensive strategy might not be very great, if the plaintiff’s actions had resulted from an inability to understand fully the directions that had been made available to all consumers.
Some person or event interacted with the plaintiff, and that caused the injury
—Suppose some gardeners were to take off his/her gardening gloves, and then proceed to cut roses with a rose clipper. If that same gardener were to get cut by a thorn, he/she could not say that a defect in the clippers had caused the injury.
—On the other hand, suppose a homemaker were to put a newly purchased teakettle on a lighted burner. Then the same homemaker heard the doorbell ringing, and went to answer the door. If the water evaporated, causing the teakettle to overheat and injure the homemaker, the defendant would have a reason for being freed from liability.
