A cause of action is a legal theory that has been used as basis for blaming a given product line on the existence of a defect in that same line. There are several causes of action available to any one plaintiff.
Theory of strict liability
This declares a company liable whether or not it had taken precautions, in hopes of preventing any injury or illness. The plaintiff must demonstrate two proof:
-There was a defect in the named product
-The defect had caused the plaintiff’s injury
Possible defenses for charge of strict liability
-The product was not inherently dangerous.
-The injured user should have been aware of the danger
-The product’s defect was not the cause for the plaintiff’s injury.
The excluded defense: an argument that great care had gone into the crafting of the allegedly defective product.
This theory alleges that marketers had used deceptive statements to hide some danger in a marketed item. In order to prove deceptive marketing, the plaintiff’s lawyer must show that the company knew about the hidden danger. Experienced lawyers would know to seek such proof in the company’s records.
Breach of warranty
This theory could apply to either the breaching of a stated warranty of the breaching of an implied one.
-The express warranty is either written or stated; it could appear on a label or sign, or in an advertisement.
-The implied warranty has been imposed by state law: Some implied warranties concern the product’s fitness for its stated purpose; others concern the product’s fitness for a consumer’s unique purpose.
A charge of negligence could be made against either of 3 divisions, each of which had played a part in a given product’s creation. The plaintiff might claim that the designer had been negligent, by introducing a design that was certain to make the product inherently dangerous.
The plaintiff’s charge of negligence might be directed against the manufacturer. That would be the case, if some worker on the plant’s floor had failed to do his or her job in a satisfactory fashion. Personal Injury Lawyer in Sydney know that manufacturers are supposed to have people that perform a product control operation, in an effort to catch workers’ mistakes.
Finally, the plaintiff might show that the marketer had failed to demonstrate reasonable care, when preparing the item that was to be sold to consumers. That lack of care could have involved the absence of a needed warning, the failure to create clear instructions, or a mislabeling of the item that was to go on store shelves.
By the same token, a careless retailer might have aided the performance of a negligent operation. For instance, the retailer’s neglectful act could have kept buyers from viewing important information.