- Anyone who sells a defective product that is unreasonably dangerous to the consumer may be found strictly liable for injuries caused by the product.
- A product may be unreasonably dangerous because of a marketing defect, a design defect, or a manufacturing defect.
Strict liability imposes legal liability on defendants for certain injuries caused to persons or property without a finding of fault. For reasons of public policy, certain activities are permitted only if the person conducting the activity is willing to insure others for any harm that results from the activity.
Under the law of products liability, a manufacturer or designer that originally sells a product in a defective condition that is unreasonably dangerous to the consumer of the product is strictly liable for injuries caused by the product. Any kind of product may be the subject of a strict products liability claim. Some examples of products liability cases handled by our law firm are:
- A prescription drug that causes cancer;
- A car with a roof that collapses into the occupant survival space upon rolling over in an accident; and
- A space heater that sets fire to a house or apartment.
Under Texas products liability law, a product may be unreasonably dangerous because of a defect in the product’s marketing, design, or manufacture.
Manufacturing Defect
A product has a manufacturing defect if it differs in construction or quality from its intended design in such a way that makes the product unreasonably dangerous. For example, Blue Bell ice cream products contaminated with Listeria contained a manufacturing defect. The products were not designed to contain Listeria, and the Listeria contamination caused a life-threatening infection in some individuals who consumed the products.
Design Defect
A product has a design defect if it is designed in an unreasonably dangerous way. Products that are structurally unstable are prime examples of defectively designed products. A car model that has a tendency to rollover when turning is one such example.
In Texas, courts apply a risk-utility test to determine whether or not a product is defectively designed. Under this test, courts consider the following factors:
- The utility of the product to the consumer and to the public compared to the seriousness and likelihood of injury;
- The availability of a safer alternative design;
- The manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the danger without impairing the product’s usefulness or significantly increasing its cost;
- The consumer’s awareness of the danger because of the obvious nature of the product or the existence of suitable warnings; and
- The expectations of the ordinary consumer.
Marketing Defect
A product has a marketing defect if it is not accompanied by adequate warnings about the product’s potential dangers. The seller of a product is liable for a marketing defect if the lack of adequate warnings makes an otherwise adequate product unreasonably dangerous. Often, claims for marketing defects are referred to as “failure to warn” claims.
The seller of a product does not have a duty to warn about ordinary and obvious risks. For example, a knife manufacturer is not required to warn that its knives are sharp. The manufacturer of a prescription drug, however, is required to warn about the drug’s potential side effects. Similarly, the manufacturer of a household cleaner has a duty to warn about the dangers of inhaling the product’s fumes.
Written by:
Linda K. Leibfarth
Watts Guerra LLP
4 Dominion Drive, Bldg 3, Suite 100
San Antonio, TX 78257
Phone (210) 447-0500
© Watts Guerra LLP 2015
