Product liability and negligence

A basic negligence claim consists of proof of (1) a duty owed on the part of the manufacturer, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) that the breach caused the plaintiff's injury, and (4) an injury. A products liability negligence claim usually falls into one of three possible types: those claiming a design defect, a manufacturing defect, or a failure to warn. Over time, several other negligence concepts have arisen to deal with certain specific situations, including negligence per se (using a manufacturer's violation of a law or regulation in place of proof of a duty and a breach) and res ipsa loquitur (an inference of negligence under certain conditions). The difficulties of an injured customer to prove what a manufacturer did or did not do during the design or manufacture of product has led to the development of newer product liability claims such as strict liability.

Product liability and strict liability

Rather than focus on the behavior of the manufacturer (as in negligence), strict liability claims focus on the product itself. The basic component of a strict liability claim is proof that the product is defective or unreasonably dangerous. Similar to negligence claims, strict liability claims may attack a product's design, manufacture, or warnings. The various U.S. states have employed numerous ways to determine a product's defectiveness. Most of the tests used to determine defectiveness include concepts such as consumer expectations (consumer expectations test), a balancing of the product's risk and its utility (Risk-Utility Test), the obviousness of the danger (Open and Obvious Danger Rule), the existence of a safer design alternative (Feasible/Reasonable Design Alternative), the sophistication of the product's user (Sophisticated User Doctrine), and existence of knowledgeable intermediaries between the manufacturer and the user (Learned Intermediary Doctrine).

Strict liability for defective products has often been criticized as an extremely harsh doctrine which imposes high liability costs upon manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and anyone else in the chain of commerce whom it attaches to. It is one of the primary reasons for why warning labels have become so ubiquitous on modern products.

Regardless, it has become the overwhelming majority rule in the United States, due to the widespread agreement that it is the only way to ensure that such parties will always take all reasonable measures to protect the consumer (because they know they will always be liable for any harm caused).

Otherwise, entire industries could escape liability for egregious tortious conduct, by simply establishing an industry-wide level of "due care" that somehow happens to result in unconscionable injury to a large number of consumers. Such consumers would then have no recourse in negligence because of its requirement that the plaintiff show that the defendant breached the duty of due care.