Defect Lawyers

When making a claim for strict liability in a product liability case, it is necessary to prove that the product was defective by proving that it was “unreasonably dangerous for its intended use” as a result of a defect or defects. A product may be inherently dangerous but also be valuable or helpful, and this “utility” is such that the danger is one which would not be considered “unreasonable”.

For instance, gasoline could be considered a dangerous product, but its utility far outweighs any danger posed by it. If used in accordance with in its intended purpose, gasoline is not considered dangerous. If there were an alternative, less dangerous, and no more costly fuel available, the law would likely permit a product liability action to prove that gasoline is an unreasonably dangerous product, and therefore, defective. Along those same lines, a knife could be considered a dangerous product, but the law wouldn’t consider it “unreasonably” dangerous unless it were manufactured in a way which made it a hazard under ordinary usage.

There are certain types of products which may be may be considered unavoidably unsafe, such as medical drugs. There are many drugs used in the treatment of serious and fatal diseases which themselves may cause serious injury and even death. Although these products may be clearly “dangerous,” they may not be considered “unreasonably dangerous” as long as proper information and warnings are given to users.

In general, there are three types of defects which could render a product unreasonably dangerous:

Manufacturing defect — Error in product manufacture or assembly Design defect — Faulty product design Manufacturer or seller’s failure to warn of danger associated with use of the product

]]>

Manufacturing defects are defects that typically occur in a low number of units of a given product, since the defects occur during the manufacturing process of a product. There are many potential problems which can occur during production and assembly of complex products — a bolt may not be adequately tightened, a screw may be missing, wires may be crossed or pieces may be incorrectly soldered. As a result, the product comes off the assembly line in defective condition.

Here is an example: A transistor is improperly installed into a toaster, causing the unit to smoke and eventually burn up. The manufacturing defect poses a risk of electrical shock, as well as a fire hazard. If it causes a shock or a fire in your home, the manufacturer will be liable for injury and damages which result.

Design defects are inherent flaws in the design of a product. This means that even if a product is assembled and produced according to its exact specifications, it will always come out of the factory in dangerous condition. An automobile that will explode upon impact would be considered to have a design defect.

Here is an example: A ladder is constructed of lightweight aluminum, which can bend, or cause the ladder to tip with little force. Even if every such ladder is assembled correctly, it will still create a dangerous situation for users of the ladders. Such a ladder is considered to have a design defect, and may need to be redesigned before it is considered a safe product.

If a product is packaged incorrectly, this would be also be considered a design defect. For example, if an insect poison is sold in a bottle that is prone to leaking, or requires a user’s hands to come in contact with the poison, the manufacturer could be liable for injuries which result from the defective design. Much of today’s product liability litigation consists of design defect cases, and this field is broad enough to cover such claims as asbestos litigation, flammable fabric litigation, dangerous power tool or appliance litigation, vaccine and other drug litigation, defective medical implant litigation (including breast implants), and any other area in which a product’s design makes it unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.

The manufacturer must adequately warn consumers of the potential dangers, and the alert must be explicit and written in language that is easily comprehensible to the average person. Failure to adequately provide information about the use, handling, dangers, and other effects of a product is a common basis for product liability lawsuits. Not having clear instructions for usage may render an otherwise safe product as an unreasonably dangerous product.

Inadequate warnings generally are those which fail to prevent the improper use or assembly of a product. Product manufacturers have a responsibility to provide consumers with clear and complete instructions to ensure the safe use of a product. This is particularly important where the product is “intrinsically dangerous”, i.e., of such a character to be harmful in its ordinary use absent proper caution (chemicals, drugs, machinery, etc.).

Originally published here.

Every year in the United States, thousands of people are injured using a wide variety of products. These injuries can have serious and long-lasting consequences. You may be entitled to compensation for your injury if it was the result of a defective product. A product can be considered defective if it falls into one or more of these three categories:

Manufacturing defects
Design defects
Failure to warn

Manufacturing defects occur when the manufacturer has no system of inspecting their product and it ends up failing during normal use and causing injury. A design defect is one where the product is inherently faulty and unsafe. A failure to warn occurs when an injury takes place and there was no label on the product or in an instruction manual to warn you of the possible dangers involved in using the product.

If you do get hurt by a defective product, you should seek the help of an experienced product liability lawyer. A product liability lawyer is familiar with the ins and outs of the legal process and will ensure that you get the compensation you deserve to help pay for your immediate and long term costs. An attorney can help you positively determine if your injury is the result of a defective product.

A skilled attorney is also useful in helping you name the defendants in your claim. A product liability lawsuit may need to include all parties involved in the chain of distribution, from the manufacturer to the retailer. If all parties have a share in distributing a safe and effective product, then they may all have a responsibility in compensating you for your injuries.

A product liability attorney will provide invaluable help in researching all aspects of your product liability claim and helping you win your case. Product liability claims not only can aid your financial recovery, but they also help ensure that the defective product is not able to hurt anyone else.

If you live in Colorado and have been injured by a defective product, please visit Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine online today.

With offices in Denver, Cincinnati, Cody, and Phoenix, Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C., is a firm of award winning national trial lawyers, practicing in the areas of personal injury, class action, medical malpractice, dangerous drug litigation, defective products, insurance bad faith, employment law, commercial and securities litigation. For further information please contact Burg Simpson at 303.792.5595.

Originally published here.

Sometimes when an accident occurs there is actually no one to blame except for the manufacturers of the motor vehicle that is called Car Defect Injury Claim. The goal of this claim is to establish a vehicle manufacturer or seller’s liability for a car defect. It is not important at which stage was the defect in designing, assembling, or handling a motor vehicle, a claim can be made if three of the following conditions exist:

1.  The first condition is and “unreasonably dangerous” defect in vehicle or one of its components that caused injury. The defect can be either in the design of the vehicle, could be made during manufacture or during handling or shipment. Also failure to provide information about a dangerous aspect of the vehicle to a customer is considered to be a cause for a Car Defect Injury claim.

2. The injury was caused by the defect while the vehicle was used in a way that it was intended to be. Even if a defect is present a claim can not be made if the vehicle was used in some unusual way.

3. If the vehicle was not “Substantially” changed after it was bought. “Substantially” changed means that the way how the vehicle performs was affected.

If all the three conditions are present the manufacturer or seller can be sued for a Car Defect, but remember that the companies will try to do end the case as “not guilty”. It is best to find a good experienced lawyer before making a claim, or the case will end up very fast.

Punitive damaged have become a very important element in any Car Defect Injury claim over the years. If we analyze the logic of the car manufacturers we will see that huge punitive damages are exactly the thing that matters to them. The formula is cruel but simple. The manufacturer usually calculates the costs of fixing the defect in the design or in a number of produced vehicles and then compares it with costs of litigation and settlement after the defect causes injuries. If the money required on fixing the defects is more than on settlement of the injury cases, the manufacturers would prefer to pay damages. So naturally in every Car Defect Injury Case the punitive damages could be set as high as possible to force the manufacturer to reconsider the design defect.

There is also one type of commonly used defense in Car Defect Injury Claims, but it can be used only if the injured person owned the vehicle for some time. Basing on description of usage of the vehicle the vehicle manufacturer or seller can claim that the person knew about the defect but continued to use the vehicle. This can be also stated after the manufacturer’s or seller’s insurance company has examined the defect vehicle. Also in some cases the manufacturers can claim that the usage of the vehicle and contributory or comparative negligence was the cause of, or a factor in caused injuries.

Originally published here.