Jump to Navigation

Dangerous or Defective Products

If you have lost a family member or suffered injuries as a result of another person's negligence or misconduct, you could be legally entitled to compensation for your loss. To learn more about your right to damages, contact our firm to schedule a consultation with an experienced personal injury attorney for straightforward solutions that will work for you.

Thank you for contacting Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law. Your message has been sent.

Call us now

or use the form below.

Dangerous or Defective Products

A person who suffered harm while using a product that was manufactured or marketed in a defective or dangerous way may be able to recover damages from the responsible party in a products liability-based personal injury suit.

Products liability law enforces the responsibility of a manufacturer, seller or distributor of goods to compensate users of those goods for injuries caused by defective or dangerous products that it placed into the stream of commerce. The basic idea underlying products liability law is that the companies providing the products are usually in the best position to prevent defective products from entering the marketplace, so if they fail to do so, they should be held accountable.

An experienced and knowledgeable personal injury lawyer at Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law in Wilmington, DE, can advise injured persons on whether they may have a claim against a product manufacturer or seller and can help them recover the damages to which they are legally entitled.

The plaintiff's burden in a dangerous or defective product personal injury case

Although products liability law has evolved over the years, these cases are still challenging for plaintiffs. At one time, "caveat emptor" (literally translated as "buyer beware") was the standard to which manufacturers were held. Today "strict liability" is imposed in appropriate cases.

Under a strict liability standard, manufacturers are responsible for injuries caused by defective or unreasonably dangerous products even if they were not negligent. In a products liability action, the injured person, or plaintiff, must prove, that there was a design or manufacturing defect in the product or that the manufacturer did not adequately warn consumers about the product's possible dangers. In addition, he or she must establish, through relevant and credible evidence, that the product caused the injuries, and that he or she was using the product in the way it was intended to be used (or that the manufacturer should have anticipated that the product could be dangerous if "misused" in the way that it was).

Manufacturing defects are usually easier to prove than design defects. If a particular consumer's gas fireplace explodes when first lit, for example, it is evidence that the fireplace was not manufactured as the designer intended it to be. A design-defect case, on the other hand, could arise if many or all fireplaces of a manufacturer's particular model posed a threat of explosion. In a design defect case, the product may have been manufactured as it was intended to be, but the design was deficient or fundamentally inadequate in some way in which to pose unreasonable hazards to consumers.

Proving causation in a products liability case can be tricky. The plaintiff must establish that the product was defective when it left the hands of the defendant manufacturer, distributor or seller, and that the defect was the cause of the accident that led to the plaintiff's injuries. If the injuries could have arisen from several potential causes, the plaintiff usually must establish that the product defect played a substantial role in bringing about the injuries.

Theories of recovery in dangerous or defective product personal injury cases

The following are some possible legal theories that can be argued in a products liability case.

  • Negligence - a lack of reasonable care in the manufacture or sale of a product or in warning about the product
  • Breach of warranty - the failure to fulfill the terms of a promise regarding a product's performance
  • Misrepresentation - giving consumers a false sense of security about a product's safety is a type of misrepresentation
  • Strict liability - where a product's defect, although not the fault of the defendant, rendered the product unreasonably dangerous, the defendant is responsible under the theory of strict liability

Although there is no limit to the list of products that could form the basis of a products liability suit, some of the more common product categories include apparel, asbestos, chemicals, cosmetics, firearms, food, machinery/tools, medical products and devices, motor vehicles, pharmaceutical products, recreational products and tobacco.

Contact a personal injury lawyer

Persons injured by dangerous or defective products need the counsel of skilled personal injury or products liability lawyers to advise them on the complexities of their case and guide them through the legal system toward the most favorable outcome. If you or someone you know has suffered injuries as a result of using a dangerous or defective product, the experienced and knowledgeable personal injury attorney at Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law in Wilmington, DE, can advise you on whether you may have a claim against the product manufacturer or seller and can help you recover the maximum damages recoverable under the applicable laws.

Copyright © 2017 FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business

DISCLAIMER: This site and any information contained herein are intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek competent legal counsel for advice on any legal matter.

Back to Main

View Cases

  • Sheridan v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3rd Cir. 1996) (en banc) (Plaintiff's jury verdict and the "pretext only" paradigm for proof of intentional discrimination established).
  • Hawkins v. Division of State Police, et al., C.A. No. 99-297-SLR (Religious discrimination case which successfully obtained an offer of judgment and caused the State to stop using the MMPI-1.
  • Miller v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., C. A. No. 01-827-JJF (D.Del. 2003) (Race Discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Panaro v. J.C. Penny, Inc., C.A. 01C-02-010 JOH, 2002 WL 130692 (Del. Super. 2002)(In a personal injury case, admission into evidence of direct examination of deceased deponent/plaintiff does not.
  • Price, et al. v. L. Aaron Chaffinch, et al., C.A. No. 04-956-GMS, 2006 WL 1313178 (D.Del. 2006) (First Amendment Retaliation, Petitions Clause and Defamation Claims survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Reyes v. Freebery, 141 Fed. Appx. 49 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) remanding to District Court to explain its restrictions on the public's right to access to judicial records and counsel's First Amendment.
  • Underwood v. Sear Roebuck and Co., 343 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.Del. 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Shotzberger v. State of Delaware Dept. Of Correction, 2004 WL 758354 (D.Del. Jan. 30, 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgement).
  • Stull v. Thomas S. Neuberger, P.A., 2003 WL 21481016 (Del. Super. Febr. 28, 2003) (Effect of Delaware accord and satisfaction law on a contract for legal services).
View More Cases

Case Evaluation Form

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy