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: Statute of Repose: SB 92 (1991).

Utah|1991

Establishes a 10-year statute of repose for actions brought against

[…]

Establishes a 10-year statute of repose for actions brought against architects, engineers, and builders for design error or faulty construction.  Requires that actions be brought within two years from the date that the defect is discovered.  Requires that breach of contract or warranty claims be brought within 6 years of the date of completion.  The reform does not apply to claims involving intentional or willful misconduct or warranties exceeding the statutory period of six years.  The statute of repose which provided death benefits to dependents only when work-related injury caused death within six years of accident violated the open courts provision of the State Constitution. Hales v. Industrial Commission of Utah, 854 P.2d 537 (Utah App. 1993).


[hide]