Product liability is an area of law that holds manufacturers and sellers responsible for injuries and damages caused by their products. There are at least four categories of product liability, including design defects, failure to warn, manufacturing defects, and defective pharmaceuticals. In this article, we will explore each of these categories in detail, and provide examples of each.
Design Defects
A design defect is a flaw in a product’s design that makes it dangerous or defective. This can occur when a manufacturer fails to account for potential hazards during the design process. An example of a design defect is a car that is prone to flipping over due to a high center of gravity. In this case, the design of the car itself is inherently dangerous.
In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff must show that a design defect existed at the time the product was manufactured, and that the defect was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. The plaintiff must also show that there was a reasonable alternative design that would have made the product safer.
Failure to Warn
A failure to warn claim arises when a manufacturer fails to provide adequate warnings or instructions about the safe use of a product. This can occur when a product is inherently dangerous and requires specific precautions to be taken to use it safely. An example of a failure to warn is a medication that does not include proper warnings about potential side effects or interactions with other drugs.
In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff must show that the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings, that the lack of warnings was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury, and that the plaintiff was using the product as intended at the time of the injury.
Manufacturing Defects
A manufacturing defect occurs when a product is manufactured in a way that makes it dangerous or defective. This can occur when a mistake is made during the manufacturing process that results in a product that is different from the intended design. An example of a manufacturing defect is a bicycle with a faulty brake system that was not caught during the manufacturing process.
In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff must show that the product was defective due to a manufacturing defect, and that the defect was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
Defective Pharmaceuticals
Defective pharmaceuticals are products that are intended to be used for medical purposes, but which have dangerous side effects or other defects that make them unsafe for use. This can occur when a medication is improperly formulated or tested, or when a drug is marketed for purposes for which it has not been approved. An example of a defective pharmaceutical is a medication that causes severe liver damage or other serious side effects.
In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff must show that the medication was defective, and that the defect was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. The plaintiff must also show that the medication was used as intended, and that the manufacturer or distributor was aware of the defect or should have been aware of it.
Other Categories of Product Liability
In addition to the categories discussed above, there are other categories of product liability, including:
Breach of warranty: When a product fails to meet the expectations or promises of the manufacturer or seller.
Strict liability: When a product is inherently dangerous, and the manufacturer or seller is held responsible regardless of whether they were negligent or at fault.
Intentional torts: When a manufacturer or seller intentionally produces or sells a dangerous product.
About Pennsylvania Product Liability
Pennsylvania product liability law is primarily based on common law and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decisions. The Restatement (Third) of Torts has been adopted as the framework for product liability cases in Pennsylvania, including design defect claims.
Under § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a product is defective if it is sold in a condition that is unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. This applies to all products, including those that are inherently dangerous and those that are safe if properly used.
Pennsylvania has adopted a modified version of § 402A that requires plaintiffs to show that the product was designed in a way that made it unreasonably dangerous, and that a reasonable alternative design existed at the time of the injury. This is consistent with the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which provides that a product is defective in design if the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design.
Under Pennsylvania law, plaintiffs must also show that the alternative design was feasible, economically and technologically, and that the alternative design would have reduced the risk of harm while maintaining the product’s utility and usability. This is consistent with the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which provides that an alternative design is feasible if it is practical and capable of being put into production.
In summary, Pennsylvania product liability law is based on common law and the Restatement (Third) of Torts. Design defect claims require plaintiffs to show that a reasonable alternative design was available, feasible, and would have reduced the risk of harm while maintaining the product’s utility and usability. This requirement is consistent with the Restatement (Third) of Torts and the modified version of § 402A adopted by Pennsylvania.
Examples of Pennsylvania Product Liability Cases
Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014)
A notable Pennsylvania product liability case is Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014). In Tincher, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court re-examined the state’s product liability law and adopted the Restatement (Third) of Torts as the framework for product liability claims in the state.
The case involved a claim by a homeowner who suffered property damage when a flexible gas tubing manufactured by Omega Flex failed and caused a gas leak. The homeowner alleged that the tubing was defectively designed and that Omega Flex had failed to provide adequate warnings.
The court held that the Restatement (Third) of Torts provided the appropriate framework for analyzing product liability claims in Pennsylvania. The court also clarified the elements of a design defect claim, holding that a plaintiff must show that the product’s design was the cause of the harm, and that the risk posed by the design outweighed the product’s utility. The court also clarified the elements of a failure to warn claim, holding that a plaintiff must show that the warning was inadequate, and that the inadequate warning was the cause of the harm.
The Tincher case is significant because it provides guidance on the elements of product liability claims in Pennsylvania, and clarifies the appropriate framework for analyzing such claims in the state. It also underscores the importance of design defects and warnings in product liability cases.
Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 841 A.2d 1000 (Pa. 2003).
In this case, a child suffered severe burns when a lighter manufactured by Cricket was ignited by another child. The child’s mother brought a product liability claim against Cricket, alleging that the lighters were defectively designed and that Cricket had failed to provide adequate warnings.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to support her design defect claim, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that the Cricket lighter was unreasonably dangerous due to its design. The court also found that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to support her failure to warn claim, as Cricket had not included a warning on its lighters about the potential danger to children.
The court ultimately concluded that the plaintiff’s claims could proceed to trial, rejecting Cricket’s argument that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support her claims.
The Phillips case is significant because it highlights the importance of product design and warnings in product liability cases. It also illustrates the potential liability that manufacturers can face when their products are involved in serious accidents or injuries.
Conclusion
Product liability is a complex area of law that holds manufacturers and sellers responsible for injuries and damages caused by their products. It is important for manufacturers and sellers to take appropriate steps to ensure that their products are safe and free from defects, and to provide adequate warnings and instructions when necessary. By understanding the categories of product liability, and how they apply in Pennsylvania, manufacturers and sellers can help protect themselves and their customers from potential harm.
