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.