Product Liability

Problem

Product liability laws in some states fail to send clear signals to manufacturers about how to avoid liability, and hold manufacturers liable for failure to adopt certain designs when the manufacturers neither knew, nor could have anticipated, the risk.

ATRA's Position:

ATRA supports legislation that: governs all product liability actions, irrespective of the theory on which they are brought, so that plaintiffs cannot evade the law by inventing new theories of recovery; permits a plaintiff to recover damages only upon proof that the product was defective and that the defect was the cause of the harm; sets out clear rules for determining when a product is defective; provides clear standards for establishing liability based on manufacturing defects, design defects, and warning defects; provides clear rules requiring proof of causation.

Opposition Opinion:

The personal injury bar’s argument against product liability reform – that a strict liability system encourages accident prevention by holding manufacturers, who are in the best position to reduce or eliminate injuries, fully liable for injuries caused by their products – unfairly holds manufacturers liable for any injury related to their activity regardless of their ability to foresee an imminent injury or the consumer’s ability to prevent it. As the brunt of responsibility has fallen on manufacturers, product liability insurance premiums have risen twice the rate of inflation in recent years. As a result, many U.S. firms have opted to discontinue product research, cut back on introducing new product lines, and raise prices. Ultimately, the abuse of product liability laws offers consumers fewer domestic products at higher prices and compromises the competitiveness of U.S. firms in foreign and domestic markets.

Product Liability Reform: H.B. 13 (special session) (2004); Amended Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-63.

Mississippi|2004

Provides that the seller of a product, other than a

[…]

Provides that the seller of a product, other than a manufacturer, cannot be held liable unless the seller had substantial control over the harm causing aspect of the product, the harm was caused by a seller’s alteration or modification of the product, the seller had actual knowledge of the defective condition at the time the product was sold, or the seller made an express warranty about the aspect of the product which caused the plaintiff’s harm.

[hide]

Product Liability Reform: HB 1270 (1993).

Mississippi|1993

Requires product liability cases to be based on a design,

[…]

Requires product liability cases to be based on a design, manufacturing or warning defect, or breach of an express warranty, which caused the product to be unreasonably dangerous. Provides that a product that contains an inherently dangerous characteristic is not defective if the dangerous characteristic cannot be eliminated without substantially reducing the product’s usefulness or desirability and the inherent characteristic is recognized by the ordinary person with ordinary knowledge common to the community. Provides that a manufacturer or seller cannot be held liable for failure to warn of a product’s dangerous condition if it was not known at the time the product left the manufacturer’s or seller’s control. Completely bars from recovery a plaintiff who knowingly and voluntarily exposes himself or herself to a dangerous product condition if he or she is injured as a result of that condition. Relieves a manufacturer or seller from the duty to warn of a product that poses an open and obvious risk. Provides that a properly functioning product is not defective unless there was a practical and economically feasible design alternative available at the time of manufacture. Provides for indemnification of innocent retailers and wholesalers.

[hide]