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: HB 350 (1996).

Ohio|1996

Amends product liability law to include additional requirements for establishing

[…]

Amends product liability law to include additional requirements for establishing liability.  Prohibits expanding theories of liability, including enterprise liability.  Adopts a fifteen‑year statute of repose in product liability cases, absent latent harm or fraud.


[hide]

Challenged and Struck Down

The comprehensive 1996 tort reform law violated the doctrine of separation of powers and the one-subject provision of the State Constitution.  State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio 1999).

Product Liability Reform: HB 1 (1987).

Ohio|1987

Provides that a product’s design is not defective if: (1)

[…]

Provides that a product’s design is not defective if: (1) an injury occurs due to the inherent characteristics of a product, where the characteristics are recognized by the ordinary person with ordinary knowledge common to the community; or (2) an injury occurs because of a design which is state of the art, unless the manufacturer acted unreasonably in introducing the product into trade or commerce.  Provides that a product is not defective due to lack of warnings if the risk is open and obvious or is a risk that is a matter of common knowledge.  Establishes a complete defense for manufacturers and sellers of ethical drugs and/or devices if they have supplied adequate warnings to learned intermediaries, unless the FDA requires additional warnings.  Provides that a drug manufacturer shall not be liable for punitive damages if the drug was approved by the FDA.


[hide]