In this post, we take an in-depth look at what goes into settling a product liability claim in Arizona or filing a lawsuit based on product liability.
If you have been harmed by a defective product, please call Stone Rose Law at (480) 631-3025 to discuss a lawsuit with an experienced personal injury attorney.
“Product liability” is a concept that includes multiple theories of liability. The starting point in resolving a product liability claim is to refine it down to the specific kinds of claims you may have, and who may be liable to you based on those claims.
A product liability claim generally consists of proving, to a standard of “more likely than not,” the following elements:
What follows are some of the product liability-based claims you can make. Depending on the facts in your case, you may be able to make more than one claim against one or more possible defendants.
Manufacturing defects occur during the creation of the product, making it inherently and unreasonably unsafe to use as intended. For example, a manufacturing defect can result from using defective parts, defective manufacturing processes, or inadequate quality control.
A product manufacturer does not need to be aware of a manufacturing defect to be liable for it. Nor is it up to you to be able to spot manufacturing errors. In fact, it is reasonable for you to assume that a product is reasonably safe for you to use if a manufacturer puts it into commerce.
Sometimes, a product does not even need to make it to the factory assembly line to be defective. If a product’s design is bad, no amount of quality control will make any difference.
For example, back in the 1970s, a major car maker designed a car with a defective gas tank arrangement that could cause it to catch fire and explode in a rear-end collision. The car was built as designed, with no manufacturing defects, but was still inherently dangerous to drive and led to many serious burn injuries and deaths from rear-end collisions.
Another consideration in defective design claims is whether the manufacturer follows appropriate governmental rules and regulations that apply to the product. If it does not, then this can be evidence of a bad design.
A product can be well-designed and built and still be inherently dangerous if used improperly. A failure of the product maker to include proper instructions on how to use its product, or adequate warnings if it is misused, can lead to injury or death to people using it.
Proper instructions and warnings are especially important if a manufacturer can reasonably anticipate that an end user might use a product in a way that it is not intended for and fails to warn against such use.
A classic example is a food product that must be heated to a high temperature before consumption: a relevant warning would be to inform the consumer to wait for a period of time before consuming the product out of the oven or microwave to prevent a burn injury.
A manufacturer that provides a warning can still be liable in a product liability lawsuit for its warning label if the warning is poorly placed, uses difficult-to-understand language, or is written in small, hard-to-read text.
Sometimes a manufacturer knows that its product is unreasonably dangerous as designed or built, but chooses to conceal that defect.
In the automobile gas tank example above, evidence existed that the car maker knew about the possibility of fires resulting in rear-end collisions, but calculated that the cost of recalling the cars and correcting the problem would be more than the anticipated settlement payouts, so it chose the more “economical” option of letting some people burn and kept quiet about the defect.
Another well-known example involved the use of asbestos in product construction.
A leading provider of asbestos was aware of the link between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma, but failed to warn about it. Product liability lawsuits concerning tobacco products were also based on the sellers of these products knowing about the related risks of lung cancer and other cancers from using these products and marketing them anyway.
Unlike many other kinds of defective product claims, which are based on tort law legal theories like personal injury or wrongful death, a breach of warranty product liability claim is based on breach of contract between the product maker or seller and the customer.
What this means to you is that only people who are covered under the product warranty can make this kind of claim. Again, if we return to the defective gas tank example, let’s say the original buyer of the car sold it to another person, and that person was injured in a gas tank fire from a rear-end accident.
In this situation, even though no contract-based warranty exists between the car maker and the second purchaser, that person can still make a product liability claim based on a personal injury tort claim.
Breach of warranty claims are based on express or implied warranties.
Breach of the implied warranty of merchantability requires a claimant to prove that the product was defective.
A breach of the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose does not require you to prove that the defendant’s product was defective, but rather to prove that the maker or seller knew about your specific needs from the product, and promised to meet those requirements, but the product did not meet them.
Many manufacturers and sellers will make written disclaimers of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
A product liability attorney can help you determine whether a warranty-based product liability claim is available to you.
Negligence can exist when a manufacturer, distributor, or seller of a product owes a duty to consumers to make it safe for ordinary use, yet knows or should know about a defect in the design or manufacture of the product that makes it inherently dangerous even when used properly.
When coupled with resulting harm, a breach of this duty to consumers is the basis for a negligence claim in a product liability lawsuit.
In our car gas tank example, a negligence-based claim would focus on the car maker’s duty to build a car that was safe to drive or ride in, that it knew or should have known that the defective gasoline tank design was unreasonably unsafe, and that the plaintiff suffered burn injuries because of the car maker’s breach of this duty.
Strict liability is different from negligence-based liability in that, under a strict liability claim, you do not have to show that the product maker or seller owed you a duty of care and breached that duty.
Instead, you need only to show:
If you can prove these elements, then the burden shifts to the product maker or seller to prove that the product was not unreasonably dangerous, that it did not cause your injury, or that you somehow contributed to your own injury.
It is no defense for the defendant to argue that it was not negligent in causing your harm.
Understanding all of the kinds of claims you can make in a product liability lawsuit is important because many product liability actions will include multiple claims as alternatives to one another.
Each claim has its own requirements to prove for you to be successful with it. If you are unsuccessful in proving one claim, that does not mean that you might not be successful in proving a different claim.
You only need to prevail on one product liability claim to be entitled to recover financial compensation for the harm done to you by a defective product.
Another important consideration in a product liability lawsuit is that you can often sue multiple defendants in the same action. Product makers are certainly logical defendants in any product liability lawsuit, but so are others, including:
Not all product makers design their own products.
Often, a manufacturer will buy or license a design from another person or company to make and sell under its own label.
If a design flaw is responsible for the product defect, then you can go past the maker and name the designer as a defendant.
Just like many manufacturers do not design their own products, many do not make all the components and sub-assemblies that go into their products.
Instead, they outsource the supply of these to third parties.
For example, an aircraft manufacturer may contract with a software company to develop a computer program that automatically prevents an aircraft from stalling under certain conditions.
But if the software source code is defective and leads to an airplane crashing into the ground on takeoff, the software company is a plausible defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit by relatives of a passenger who died in the crash.
The product manufacturer is a valid target in a product liability claim if it uses a defective design or builds a properly designed product with defects.
Product manufacturers are almost always named defendants in a product liability lawsuit.
A distinct feature of product liability law is that anyone in the distribution chain between the maker and the consumer can be named as a defendant.
As with product liability claims, in which you can make multiple claims as alternatives, you can sue multiple defendants based on the same product defect.
It is typical for a product liability claim to name several defendants, each of whom can be found liable to you, and for a jury to decide that more than one defendant is liable.
Product liability claims seek compensatory damages as their remedy.
You can pursue the following kinds of damages:
Economic damages reimburse you for losses that come out of your pocket. These commonly include:
There is no limit on how much you can recover for economic damages. They are subject only to how much you can prove.
These damages are more subjective, but you can still receive compensation for them. Examples include:
You should not overlook noneconomic damages, because although you cannot prove them with bills or receipts, they often form a significant portion of damages awards and can significantly increase settlement payouts.
In cases where the defendant acted in an especially egregious manner, you can seek exemplary or “punitive” damages.
These damages not only punish the defendant for reprehensible behavior but also discourage others from doing the same.
Going back once more to our defective gas tank example, the fact that the car maker made a calculated decision to save money by knowingly letting people be seriously injured or even burned to death because of a dangerous product is at least arguably egregious behavior for which punitive damages can be sought, and historically, punitive damages were awarded against it.
Now that you have identified the kinds of claims you want to make and whom to make them against, the next step is to understand where to make your product liability claims.
If you were the original purchaser of a defective product or are making a warranty-based claim in product liability, then the manufacturer or seller may include a term in your sale documentation requiring you to resolve any disputes through non-judicial means.
The most common of these means is arbitration, but sometimes mediation may be referred to.
A product liability attorney can help you determine whether such an arbitration or mediation clause is enforceable in your product liability case.
Arizona has its own product liability laws.
You can find these state laws in Article 9 of Chapter 6 under Title 12 of Arizona’s Revised Statutes, ARS 12-681 through ARS 12-690.
You can file a product liability lawsuit in Arizona Superior Court or, under some circumstances, in Federal District Court.
Considerations about which court to use will be based on factors including where the defendants are located, how much you seek to claim in damages, and whether your claim has the potential to become a class action lawsuit.
If you are suing multiple defendants in states other than Arizona, and your claim is for $75,000 or more, and if you are considering a class action lawsuit, then you may want to consider filing suit in federal court.
In some cases, even if you choose to sue in Arizona Superior Court, one or more of the defendants may seek to transfer or “remove” the case to federal court.
In some cases, if a defective product has injured a large number of people, a class action lawsuit may be better than filing a lawsuit on your own. In a class action claim, you file on behalf of a larger group of people who have suffered harm similar to yours.
Class action lawsuits can be practical when many claims exist, but they are not seeking large damages amounts.
Your product liability lawyer can help you decide whether to make your own separate claim against the product liability defendants or to seek class plaintiff status.
In Arizona, the statute of limitations for product liability claims is generally two years from the date the injury occurred or from when you reasonably should have discovered your injury.
Additionally, there is a 12-year statute of repose for product liability claims. This means that you must file your claim within 12 years from when the product was sold, regardless of when your injury occurred.
This statute of repose applies to negligence and breach of warranty claims, but not to claims based on strict liability.
Regardless of whether you will seek a settlement with a product liability defendant or you intend to file a lawsuit, to make your initial case, you will need to begin gathering evidence to support it.
Forms of evidence you will want to have include:
Even if you settle your claim, which happens in most product liability claims, the process of pursuing it ordinarily begins when you file a formal legal complaint in the appropriate court.
Your legal complaint will include:
Once you file your complaint, you must formally provide the defendants with a copy of it.
This is known as service of process, and it is essential to avoid dismissal of your case on procedural grounds.
Product liability personal injury cases often result in significant damages awards or settlement payouts.
This means that you can expect the defendants in your product liability claim to look for every possible defense against your claim.
An experienced product liability lawyer will be able to anticipate the kinds of defenses you can expect to encounter when the defendants file their responses to your legal complaint.
Here are some common kinds of defenses:
The next step in the process is pretrial settlement negotiations.
As we mentioned above, most personal injury claims, including product liability cases, settle before trial.
The settlement process ordinarily includes going through legal discovery, which is a pretrial legal procedure that enables both sides to gather more information from the other to better prepare for settlement or trial.
Discovery can be a valuable tool in helping you reach a fair settlement.
Through discovery, you can uncover important information relevant to your case and the defendant, including:
Discovery is often the catalyst to reaching a fair settlement.
Having a product liability lawyer who is skilled at obtaining discovery information through legal devices including oral depositions, written interrogatories, and requests for admissions, is critical to conducting thorough discovery and using it effectively in settlement negotiations.
Settlement discussions often intensify as the trial date approaches.
If you cannot reach a settlement with the defendants, then the court will eventually schedule your case for trial.
During trial, you and the defendants will be able to present material, testimonial, and circumstantial evidence, cross-examine witnesses the other side presents.
The jury will consider all the evidence and render a verdict in the case, and if you prevail you will be able to recover damages.
After the trial ends, depending on the outcome, you or the defendants may seek to appeal the trial court decision and the damages award, if any.
In this event, the case will move to an appellate court, which will review the trial court decision to see if it committed any reversible errors.
As you can see, a product liability case in Arizona can be complex to put together for settlement or trial.
Product liability cases can result in substantial settlement payouts and jury awards. In cases involving serious injuries or even wrongful death, these can often amount to millions of dollars. You should expect the defendants to prepare a tenacious defense and to hire experienced defense attorneys.
Having an experienced product liability plaintiff’s law firm on your side is critical to your chances of receiving a fair settlement with maximum compensation for your injury, or to obtain the best possible outcome at trial if settlement negotiations fail.
Stone Rose Law handles complex product liability cases for individuals throughout Arizona. Our product liability personal injury attorneys are skilled negotiators who do not allow our clients to be taken advantage of by insurance adjusters or defense lawyers.
To find out more about how our experienced Arizona product liability lawyers can help you, call us at (480) 631-3025 or use our contact form.
You will be able to speak with a product liability legal specialist who can answer your questions and schedule a free consultation to evaluate your case.
