Introduction
Products liability is probably best recognized in
suits such as fen-phen, the Ford
Explorer/Bridgestone rollover cases, the cigarrette
lawsuits and asbestos litigation. Products
liability in Utah is founded on the belief that
corporate manufacturers lack the social
consciousness necessary to produce safer products,
despite advancing production and development
techniques. Holding manufacturers accountable for
producing defective products improves the safety of
products and prevents unecessary injury to
individuals. Were it not for products liability
law, manufacturers might save the dollar or two
necessary to incorporate a simple and effective
safety switch so that they can realize a greater
profit at the expense of often devastating injuries
to individuals. The Utah Supreme Court has stated
that:
The modern experience with consumer products has been one of ever improving technology and rising standards of living, but also of injury and death: Americans -- 20 million of them -- are injured in the home each year from consumer products. Of the total, some 100,000 are permanently disabled and some 30,000 are killed. A significant number could have been spared if more attention had been paid to hazard reduction... The exposure of consumers to unreasonable consumer product hazards is excessive by any standard of measurement.
Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670 (Utah 1985).
The modern experience with consumer products has been one of ever improving technology and rising standards of living, but also of injury and death: Americans -- 20 million of them -- are injured in the home each year from consumer products. Of the total, some 100,000 are permanently disabled and some 30,000 are killed. A significant number could have been spared if more attention had been paid to hazard reduction... The exposure of consumers to unreasonable consumer product hazards is excessive by any standard of measurement.
Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670 (Utah 1985).
Types of Claims
There are several types of product liability claims
which may be made, including the following:
* Strict Liability - Under strict products liability, a manufacturer is held liable if warnings, design or manufacturing defects make the product 'unreasonably dangerous.'
o Warning Defect-a warning defect means that the manufacturer either failed to warn the consumer about dangers, or provided an inadequate warning.
o Design Defect-a design defect occurs where the manufacturer, according to common engineering principals, could have designed the product in a safer manner. You may recall that lawn mowers used to have exposed blades and no kill switch to prevent contact with rotating blades.
o Manufacturing Defect-a manufacturing defect happens when, although the product is a safe design, a flaw in the manufacturing process makes the product dangerous. For instance, a spoon which is manufactured with edges sharp enough to cut your mouth represents a manufacturing defect.
* Negligence-a claim for the failure to include an effective warning, safe design or prevent manufacturing defects. Unlike strict liability, the claimant must prove that the manufacturer was negligent in the production process or knew or should have known of the defect.
* Breach of Warranty-a claim that the product failed to live up to its purpose. For example, a tire which blows out at freeway speed would be considered a breach of the warranty that the tire is safe for road use.
* Strict Liability - Under strict products liability, a manufacturer is held liable if warnings, design or manufacturing defects make the product 'unreasonably dangerous.'
o Warning Defect-a warning defect means that the manufacturer either failed to warn the consumer about dangers, or provided an inadequate warning.
o Design Defect-a design defect occurs where the manufacturer, according to common engineering principals, could have designed the product in a safer manner. You may recall that lawn mowers used to have exposed blades and no kill switch to prevent contact with rotating blades.
o Manufacturing Defect-a manufacturing defect happens when, although the product is a safe design, a flaw in the manufacturing process makes the product dangerous. For instance, a spoon which is manufactured with edges sharp enough to cut your mouth represents a manufacturing defect.
* Negligence-a claim for the failure to include an effective warning, safe design or prevent manufacturing defects. Unlike strict liability, the claimant must prove that the manufacturer was negligent in the production process or knew or should have known of the defect.
* Breach of Warranty-a claim that the product failed to live up to its purpose. For example, a tire which blows out at freeway speed would be considered a breach of the warranty that the tire is safe for road use.
Unreasonably Dangerous?
What is 'unreasonably dangerous?'
In order to prove 'strict liability' the claimant must show that the product was 'unreasonably dangerous.' This is a loaded term and often the crux of the argument between people injured and manufacturers. Utah statutory law defines unreasonably dangerous as:
the product was dangerous to an extent beyond which would be contemplated by the ordinary and prudent buyer, consumer or user of that product in that community considering the product's characteristics, propensities, risks, dangers and uses together with any actual knowledge, training, or experience possessed by that particular buyer, user or consumer.
Utah Code Ann. §78-15-6(1).
Notably, this language takes into account not only the 'ordinary' or average joe user, but also the product's risks/dangers as well as the actual knowledge of the user. Utah law is somewhat unique in this definition. Most states only adopt either the 'ordinary' consumer expectation or whether the design could have been made safer at the time of manufacture.
In order to prove 'strict liability' the claimant must show that the product was 'unreasonably dangerous.' This is a loaded term and often the crux of the argument between people injured and manufacturers. Utah statutory law defines unreasonably dangerous as:
the product was dangerous to an extent beyond which would be contemplated by the ordinary and prudent buyer, consumer or user of that product in that community considering the product's characteristics, propensities, risks, dangers and uses together with any actual knowledge, training, or experience possessed by that particular buyer, user or consumer.
Utah Code Ann. §78-15-6(1).
Notably, this language takes into account not only the 'ordinary' or average joe user, but also the product's risks/dangers as well as the actual knowledge of the user. Utah law is somewhat unique in this definition. Most states only adopt either the 'ordinary' consumer expectation or whether the design could have been made safer at the time of manufacture.
Time Limits
How long do I have to make a claim?
The statute of limitations for each type of claim can vary greatly. At present, the following time limits generally apply:
* Strict Products Liability claims must be brought within two-years of the date of injury.
* Negligence claims must be brought within four years.
* Breach of Warranty claims may be governed by writing accompanying the product.
In any case, you should contact an attorney immediately if you believe you have a claim for injury under products liability theory.
The statute of limitations for each type of claim can vary greatly. At present, the following time limits generally apply:
* Strict Products Liability claims must be brought within two-years of the date of injury.
* Negligence claims must be brought within four years.
* Breach of Warranty claims may be governed by writing accompanying the product.
In any case, you should contact an attorney immediately if you believe you have a claim for injury under products liability theory.