Recently, the law governing Product Liability has changed, and the change could impact the outcome of your case.

In 2015, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the consumer expectations test is the appropriate standard under which design defect claims should be evaluated.  In Aubin v. Union Carbide, the Florida Supreme Court held that “the definition of design defect first enunciated in West, which utilizes the consumer expectations test, instead of utilizing the risk-utility test and requiring proof of a reasonable alternative design, best vindicates the purposes underlying the doctrine of strict liability.  We thus disapprove of the Third District’s adoption of the risk-utility test for design defects, as enunciated in the Third Restatement.”  This holding has led to interesting observations amongst commentators and the possibility that the risk-utility test may still be applicable in some cases.

Products Liability refers to a specific area of law that governs whether someone in the manufacturing chain is liable to consumers for a faulty product.  Defective brake pads, faulty household appliances, and children’s toys containing toxic substances are all examples of potential Products Liability claims.  Manufacturers owe consumers a duty of care and Products Liability law holds sloppy manufacturers accountable for manufacturing defects, and design defects.

Consumers that purchase brake pads, household appliances, or children’s toys do so with certain expectations that these products function effectively and safely.  Consumers do not expect their brake pads to fail, household appliances to combust, or children’s toys to contain toxic substances.  The consumer expectations test “allows a jury to infer the existence of a defect if a product fails to meet reasonable expectations of consumers. In a case where there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, available to prove exactly what sort of manufacturing flaw existed, a plaintiff may establish his right to recover by proving that the product did not perform in keeping with the reasonable expectations of the user.” Legal Information Institute.

Conversely, the risk-utility test asks whether the risk of using the product is outweighed by the utility of its design. This is essentially an economic analysis and juries typically answer whether a reasonable alternative design existed.  The basic criteria in this standard favor the manufacturer.  If juries find that the utility outweighed the risk, and a lack of reasonable alternative designs, the manufacturer will likely succeed.

After Aubin, the belief was that adjudicating strict liability design defect cases required the consumer expectations test.  In fact, in Aubin the Florida Supreme Court articulated its rationale stating “the burden of compensating victims of unreasonably dangerous products is placed on the manufacturers, who are most able to protect against the risk of harm, and not on the consumer injured by the product. Increasing the burden for injured consumers to prove their strict liability claims for unreasonably dangerous products that were placed into the stream of commerce is contrary to the policy reasons behind the adoption of strict liability in West.”

However, since then, some courts have indicated that the consumer expectations test is not appropriate when dealing with complex technical products.  In those instances, some believe that the facts and circumstances of a case may demand the use of the risk-utility test.  One of the reasons for this belief is that the jury instructions remain unchanged.

Either way, in many Products Liability design defect cases the consumer expectations test will be used.  This is advantageous for consumers and good news for those litigating their claims.  Manufacturers are in the best position to protect consumers, and the consumer expectations test reflects this reality.

If you or a loved one have been injured as the result of an improperly designed product, call Bryan W. Crews today, your Orlando personal injury attorney.  Bryan W. Crews has decades of experience and will thoughtfully evaluate your claim.  Products Liability is a complex area of law.  Bryan W. Crews, your Orlando personal injury attorney, will advocate on your behalf and fight to obtain full compensation.

Ford Motor Company released the Pinto in the early 1970s.  Now infamous, the Pinto’s gas tank was positioned in the rear of the vehicle, between the rear axle and rear bumper.  Rear-end collisions with the Ford Pinto led to fires, severe injury, and sometimes death.  Unlike other cars of that era with a similarly placed gas tank, the Ford Pinto was designed in such a way that it increased the risk of combustion.  Ford found a way to cut costs and developed a cost benefit analysis that compared the cost of improving safety versus the injury and death costs borne by society at large.  In short, through a series of legal battles, it was revealed that Ford knew the dangers inherent in their design and sold the Pinto to customers anyway.

Not all personal injuries are the fault of a particular person.  Widgets sold and distributed by large companies such as Ford are designed and manufactured by many employees where no one person is responsible.  These companies are held to account by filing a products liability action. Products liability is a generic phrase that refers to an area of law dealing with negligent suppliers, manufacturers, and retailers.  Plaintiffs pursuing a products liability action can bring suit under a number of legal theories: intent, negligence, strict liability, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and express warranty or misrepresentation.  Bryan W. Crews is a personal injury attorney practicing in the greater Orlando are.  He and his staff will gladly evaluate the merits of your products liability case.

In general, to prove liability the plaintiff needs to show that the product was defective.  This defect must have existed when the product left the defendant’s control.  There are two types of defects.  A manufacturing defect occurs when a single product is different and more dangerous than if it had been made properly.  This occurs when there is a mistake in the manufacturing process itself.  The second defect is a design defect.  Design defects occur when the product is made according to manufacturing specifications, all products are identical, but they have dangerous propensities.  These dangerous propensities may stem from packaging, mechanical failures, or harmful materials.  A subset of design defects are inadequate warnings.  Some products such as prescription drugs and medical devices must warn end users of any risks.  The warnings have to be clear and complete.

Product suppliers owe end users a duty of reasonable care.  That duty is breached when the defect is something that does not usually occur without negligence, or when the defendant knew or should have known of enough facts to put a reasonable manufacturer on notice.  When this duty is breached, the plaintiff must show that the product was the cause of their injury.  Under a negligence theory, you may recover for personal injury and property damage.  However, some courts may not allow recovery under a negligence theory if there is only property damage.

As a consumer, we place great trust in the expertise of the companies that develop and sell everyday products.  When that trust is broken, consumers have a right under the law to seek just compensation.  The personal injury attorneys at Bryan W. Crews have been helping clients throughout Orlando seek recovery.  If you or a family member have suffered personal injury, lost wages, loss of consortium (the loss of a close family member or a spouse), then contact Bryan W. Crews today for an evaluation of your case.  We fight tirelessly for our clients and are ready to go to work for you.