Important Details to Look Out For In Product Liability Lawsuits

Many people think that fighting a product liability claim may be a tough uphill legal battle, especially when pitted against large corporations and businesses.

However, any personal injury lawyer Virginia Beach would disagree, since product liability cases are mandated by law to protect the people’s interests, as long as the basic elements are present and all the necessary evidence collected, justice shall be served regardless of the defendants are established big companies.

Generally, a plaintiff can count on several legal theories to base a recovery argument in a product liability lawsuit.

A personal injury law firm Virginia Beach pointed out that the main theories for recovery include tortious misrepresentation, negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability in tort.

Tortious misrepresentation

A lawsuit may be based on misleading or false information provided by the manufacturer for their product. A customer who was harmed for the use of a product by relying on the information conveyed by the seller can demand misrepresentation recovery.

But remember that the basis for recovery is not focused on the defect of the product, rather on the false information provided by the seller or manufacturer.

There are three basic forms of tortious misrepresentation which are.

• Intentional deception when the seller or manufacturer is aware that the product information conveyed is fraudulent with the purpose of misleading another.
• Negligent misrepresentation when the manufacturer or seller is was negligent in determining whether the product statements are true.
• Specific jurisdictions that permit strict liability in situations where a manufacturer or seller makes a public statement regarding the safety of a product.

Negligence

A central part of the law on product liability is the tort of negligence, where an aggrieved party must prove the following basic elements against the seller or manufacturer.

• There was a duty owed to the plaintiff
• There was a breach of duty
• The breach was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury
• The breach was also the proximate cause of the injury
• Actual damages were suffered as a result of the negligent act

Manufacturers are required by law to exercise a standard of care reasonable enough for experts in the manufacture of similar products.

Breach of warranty

A warranty is what a manufacturer or seller guarantees pertaining to the quality of the product and may be considered express. This means that the product originator makes certain representations related to the product’s quality.

Should the product’s quality fail from meeting the quality of what was represented, the originator could be held liable for breach of express warranty.

Implied warranty, on the other hand, is a promise made on a product sold is in good working condition and does what it is supposed to do. Implied warranties are divided into two types- merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

Strict liability in tort

The Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402A stated a provision creating strict liability on the part of the manufacturer that indicates liability for product defects that occur during the manufacturing process, regardless of the level of care employed by the manufacturer.

The Courts later extended the strict liability principles on cases that did not involve manufacturing errors, such as the failure to provide ample warnings.

The Third Restatement of Torts also provided that strict liability rules to cases involving manufacturing errors that apply negligence rules to some parts of product liability cases.

These rules, according to a personal injury lawyer VA Beach, apply to everyone who may be a victim of product liability cases. It is everyone’s right to be protected and does not exempt anyone from accountability those who are responsible for it.