Defective products claims are often difficult to pursue when you don’t understand the legal theories defective products liability is based on.
In this post, we discuss the second of three distinct legal theories upon which defective products claims are based. A defect in a product’s design, can often cause great harm because of the wide distribution of many products on the market today.
This kind of defective products liability often leads to the many class action lawsuits, we hear about every day. When a medication, for example, is produced and sold without a clear understanding of its longterm effects, injuries may result that could lead to a personal injury claim based on a defect in a product’s design.
In this case the manufacturer is ostensibly unaware of the side-effects that manifest, perhaps, years down the line. That does not absolve the manufacturer and other partners in the distribution chain from liability. When a product is determined to be dangerous, personal injury liability law is still a potent way to remedy damages even if the danger is discovered years after the product’s use. Asbestos tort is an example of this. For many years, asbestos was a common material used in building and home production. Today, it is known to cause serious illness, and personal injury claims abound to make whole those who have been injured by it years after its use.
Of course, we have seen this kind of defective product on the market recently. Hoverboards, were once all the rage. There was a time when consumers had to look far and wide for the hot items. But soon, consumers began to notice that the motorized boards’ lithium batteries began spontaneously combusting, causing harm and damage, often documented online with viral videos in social media.
In that case, the lithium batteries used as part of the design of these popular items were ultimately found to be defective and unstable. Because of that, those injured by this phenomenon were often found to be entitled to compensation based on defective products liability due to a defect in the product’s design.
One important point to make here is that not all hoverboards explode. But just because every example of the product in question does not demonstrate the identified defect does not mean that there is not a defect in the design. If the defective component of the product is consistent with the design of the product across the board, the liability is based on defective design, not defective manufacturer.
These subtleties sound like small distinctions, but they could be the difference between presenting a successful personal injury claim or not. Courts cannot make judgments based on legal theories that do not apply, even if there is a legal theory out there under which you may be eligible for compensation. That is why it is important to consult with an experienced personal injury attorney who understands defective products law an builds their claims based on the finer distinctions of the law. Panio Law Offices in Chicago offer a wealth of experience winning the highest award damages in personal injury claims in cases like these. We work hard for all of our clients and ensure that they get the representation they deserve. We will work hard for you. Call us at 888.799.7561. We can help!