By understanding the common types of product defects, individuals can take the first step toward holding manufacturers accountable for their mistakes. Whether it’s a faulty design, a manufacturing error or inadequate warnings, learning this information may empower you to take action and fight for the compensation you deserve.

Examples of product defects

Every day, we use thousands of products that can hurt us or even cause death if they’re not made right. When a product is defective and hurts someone, the company that created it should be responsible for the harm caused.

There are different kinds of defects. Sometimes, manufacturers make mistakes during the production process, which results in a manufacturing defect. However, there are times when producers develop a product correctly, but it is still harmful or dangerous. These products have design defects.

• Automobile defects involve problems with safety equipment, such as airbags and seat belts, that can put drivers, passengers and other people on the road at risk of serious injury.
• Exploding batteries have been a recent concern, with products like hoverboards and e-cigarettes causing burn injuries.
• Defective medicines can have too much or too little active ingredients, contain toxic ingredients or have improper labeling. These issues may lead to injuries ranging from minor discomfort to permanent injury or even death.
• Malfunctioning medical equipment, such as joint replacement parts and pacemakers, can cause complications in patients with serious health conditions.

It’s essential for individuals who sustained an injury because of defective products to understand their rights. By taking action, individuals can reduce the risk of similar injuries from occurring in the future.

Understanding your rights and options

If a defective or malfunctioning product has injured you or a loved one, it’s essential to remember that you are not alone. There are steps you can take to seek justice and hold manufacturers accountable for their mistakes. By understanding your legal rights, you can determine the next steps in fighting for compensation.

The warning affects more than 80,000 older Nissan models that have unrepaired airbags made by Takata. Safety officials say that, due to a design defect, these airbags can injure or even kill the drivers and passengers they were meant to protect. Models affected include the 2002-2006 Sentra, the 2002-2004 Pathfinder and the 2002-200 Infiniti QX4.

All these vehicles were previously recalled in order to fix the defective airbags, but the NHTSA and Nissan say tens of thousands have yet to be repaired. The new warning explicitly orders owners of the vehicles to stop driving them until they can be repaired.

Huge recall

Safety advocates have long known about problems with the Takata airbags, and federal regulators began issuing recalls to repair the problem more than 10 years ago. The recalls affected not only Nissan, but also models from Ford, Daimler Chrysler, Honda, Subaru, General Motors and other automakers. All told, the recall involved more than 17 million vehicles, making it one of the largest automotive recalls in history.

According to the NHTSA, more than two dozen people have been killed because of the defects.

Product liability

Federal regulators work with automakers to recall dangerously defective vehicles, but in many cases, securing compensation for the injured is up the injured themselves.

Those injured by defective products can hold manufacturers and others accountable through the personal injury lawsuits on the basis of product liability. This term refers to a legal principle that can hold designers, manufacturers and others legally responsible after their defective products injure consumers. In many cases, a large number of injured parties join their cases together in a class action. By combining forces, they can better take on powerful corporations and others.

Some defective products cause injuries to the people using them. If people are hurt using a product that is defective, they may be able to receive compensation. There are different types of product defects though and generally the victim needs to prove that the product was defective and that their injuries were a result of the defective product.

Even if people can show that the product was the cause of the injury that does not automatically mean they will receive the compensation they believe they deserve. There are some potential defenses to these claims which could bar recovery or limit it.

Potential defenses to product design defects

One is that there are inherent dangers associated with the product, but the utility of the product outweighs the inherent dangers of the product. Typically, the victim needs to be aware of the inherent dangers as well. The other is that a reasonable consumer would not find the product to be defective when it is used in a reasonable manner. Essentially the product may have a design defect, but it should not cause harm when used in a reasonable manner.

The companies that design, manufacture and market products in Maryland must do so in way that keeps the consumers safe. If there is a design flaw, it was manufactured improperly or fails to warn the consumer of the potential dangers associated with the product, the company may be liable for paying for the damages the defective product causes the consumer. These can be complicated matters though potentially involving experts and people need to be properly prepared to ensure they receive what they deserve.

Many of those who suffered cancer that they believed were due to Johnson & Johnson’s talc products sued Johnson & Johnson for marketing these products despite allegedly knowing they could cause disease. Recently, Johnson & Johnson offered a settlement to resolve these product liability lawsuits.

The settlement

Tens of thousands of women who suffered cancer after using Johnson & Johnson baby powder sued the company, claiming the company knew their products contained ingredients that were known carcinogens, but continued to market these dangerous products to consumers.

In 2020, Johnson & Johnson pulled talc-based products from store shelves. Still, the lawsuits continued. In one case, the company was ordered to pay $2.1 billion in damages to women who suffered cancer after using their products.

Recently, Johnson & Johnson offered $8.9 billion to settle the remaining tens of thousands of talc lawsuits against them. This is four times their prior offer to resolve these lawsuits. Once the plan is confirmed, the plaintiffs in these cases will have their claims evaluated and resolved within 12 months.

Johnson & Johnson does not admit any wrongdoing and maintains its products are safe. Still, this settlement offer is seen as a victory for those who suffered cancer following the use of Johnson & Johnson talc products.

Product liability lawsuits

The Johnson & Johnson talc lawsuits serve as a good example of product liability. All parties in the chain of manufacture of a product that is placed in the hands of consumers are responsible for ensuring these products are safe. These parties include designers, manufacturers and commercial sellers.

If the product is defective and harms a user, the user of the product might be able to pursue legal action against the responsible parties in the chain of manufacture. Product liability lawsuits might be based either on negligence or strict liability, depending on the situation.

Products can have design defects, manufacturing defects or marketing defects. Any of these product defects can harm consumers, giving the consumer the right to pursue legal action if appropriate.

Slip-and-fall accident victims may file a premises liability claim against a property owner to recover compensation. To prove their case, they must show:

• A dangerous condition existed on the property
• The dangerous condition was the cause of the victim’s accident
• The property owner had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition (they knew or should have known of it)
• The property owner failed to fix the condition
• The victim was injured as a result of the accident

Evidence needed to prove a slip-and-fall claim may include:

• Incident reports filed with property owner
• Police reports
• Photos/videos of the scene of the accident, the dangerous condition on the property, the victim’s injuries, and the accident itself
• Testimony from people who witnessed the accident
• Medical records specifying injuries suffered in the accident and treatment received
• Proof of lost wages

Proving your slip-and-fall claim can be more involved than it first seems. In addition to building your own case, you will also need to prepare to defend against any claims made against you.

For example, a property owner may allege that you contributed to your own injuries by failing to pay attention to posted warning signs. Your attorney may present surveillance footage to show that the warning signs were not posted at the time of your accident.

If your case is successful, you may recover damages to cover your medical expenses and lost wages. You may also recover damages for the emotional trauma and pain and suffering you experienced.

So, what is “product liability” law and how might it be able to help those who have been injured by defective products? Well, this area of the law falls under the larger umbrella of “torts” law—commonly referred to as personal injury law. Product liability law, however, is different because it tracks the design, manufacturing and construction of products that cause harm—where, in that chain, did errors arise that led to the product being defective?

Analyzing that chain can become quite complex at times. And, the burden of proof can often be difficult to meet. For example, usually, if a design defect is part of the allegations in a product liability lawsuit, the “plaintiff”—the injured party—must prove that inherent design defects existed at that first stage. Or, plaintiffs must show that errors occurred during the manufacturing process. It may even be the plaintiff’s burden to show that the product came with inadequate instructions for use, or that there was a failure to warn about certain dangers when using the product.

Looking at your case

If you have been injured by a product that you believe is defective, you may have a valid personal injury case to pursue. The facts surrounding the situation, however, will be crucial. Looking at all of the possibilities when deciding whether to pursue your case will be a significant first step.

Well, maybe they are thinking about potential risks if they are using a product like a chainsaw or lawn mower, for example, but for the most part people trust that any given products they use are safe.

However, the unfortunate reality is that some products – not just dangerous ones – are defective and can cause harm to the user. So, what are your options if you have been injured by a defective product?

Products liability

A legal claim with these types of facts comes under the umbrella of products liability law, which is a specific area of personal injury law.

In essence, a products liability claim asserts that somewhere in the chain of history with the product – the design or manufacturing stages, for example – a defect occurred, which led to the injury the consumer suffered from using the product.

Alternatively, there might have been a failure to warn of the potential harm a product could cause – that too could lead to a products liability claim.

Pursuing a legal claim

If you were injured by a defective product, a personal injury lawsuit may be an option. In such a case, the injured party usually seeks compensation for medical bills and lost wages, for example, if those damages were the direct result of the injury from the defective product.

Some Maryland residents who find themselves in this type of situation may feel like it is too daunting to go up against a big corporation. However, consumers have power and protections under the law.

Taking advantage of your rights under the law could lead to an award of compensation that could get your life back on the right track after suffering an injury from a defective product.

The problematic rifle

Surprisingly, the trigger assembly within the iconic manufacturer’s Model 700 rifle is reportedly defective. Of course, Remington denies these allegations. However, they have settled several lawsuits, and they have even agreed to fix all of their rifles for free. Though, if you are looking for a place to fix your trigger assembly, you may find it difficult as many are still shut down, not accepting in-person appointments or just backed up.

The original reports

Originally, CNBC broke the news about the reports of defects. At that point, and ongoing even until today, Virginia customers, along with customers across the country, reported that the gun fires on its own. And, CNBC linked dozens of serious injuries and deaths to these rifles as they have been on the market for decades. Though, it is not just the Model 700 Remington. The defective trigger assembly is, apparently, in dozens of other guns as well, and they are in guns from as early as 1948.

How do I know if I may have a defective Remington?

Any gun that does not have the newer XMark Pro trigger assembly may be defective. Contact Remington to be sure. Prior trigger assemblies had a bonding issue that could cause trigger malfunctions, according to Remington.

What if I was already injured?

Unfortunately, even though the manufacturer has admitted that there is a defect in their trigger assembly, they still deny any alleged wrongdoing. This means that you will likely need to contact a Washington, D.C., metro area lawyer to fight for your rights.

Types of product defects

There are three types of product defects. The first is design defects. This occurs when the defect has been present in the product from the very beginning because the design of the product was inherently unsafe prior to its manufacturing.

The second type is a manufacturing defect, which is when a defect in the product occurred during the manufacturing or assembling of the product. The final type is a marketing defect. This is when there are flaws in the way the product is marketed, which includes the improper labeling of the product, insufficient instructions for the product or inadequate warnings concerning the product.

Establishing responsibility

If a defect is determined to be the cause of a consumer injury, responsibility needs to be established when moving forward with a product’s liability action. There are two ways to evidence responsibility in these matters.

The first is through the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur,” or “the thing speaks for itself.” This asserts that the defect could only exist if someone was negligent. Whether it is the designer, manufacturer, marketer or seller, this puts the burden on them to prove that they were not negligent.

The second is through strict liability. If this rule applies, one does not need to prove negligence but rather that the product was defective.

No matter how much trust a consumer has in a company, manufacturer or product, defects could always happen. As such, they should be prepared to understand their rights when it comes to holding a negligent or liable party accountable for the harms and damages suffered. A product liability action could result in a compensation award, which could be utilized to address losses and injuries suffered because of a defective product.

Defective products

In general, manufacturers and sellers can be held responsible if their product is defective and ends up in a consumer’s hands. Consumers have a reasonable expectation that the products they buy are safe. If they are not, the consumer can pursue a product liability claim.

For an injured person to successfully bring a claim for product liability, he or she must demonstrate that the product was defective and the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous.

A design defect means that the design of the product makes it unsafe, a manufacturer defect happens when the product is manufactured or assembled and a marketing defect means that the product did not include proper labeling, instructions or safety warnings.

Recent injuries

In a recent report completed by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, it explains that there were more than 198,000 toy-related injuries that resulted in a visit to the emergency room. The injuries included cuts, abrasions, contusions, choking and airway obstructions. In that report, the injuries were caused by balls, balloons, building sets, scooters, toys vehicles and stuffed animals.

Other baby products like swings and cribs have caused sudden infant death syndrome, which is the sudden death of an infant under the age of one. This has happened with defective products and products that were recalled, but not taken off the market by the seller.

If a child has been injured by a defective product, an experienced consumer protection attorney can help.

Baby pillows cause eight infant fatalities

Recently, the Boppy Co. has recalled almost 3.3 million baby loungers after eight infants suffocated in the pillows and died. The infants who lost their lives were lying in the lounger either on their back, side or stomach. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that the eight fatalities took place from December 2015 and June 2020. The loungers were sold by various retailers in the U.S. including Amazon and Walmart from January 2004 to September 2021.

The Boppy Co. stated that the loungers were not meant to be slept in and should not be used unsupervised. However, the CPSC stated that infant suffocation can happen quickly making the loungers too risky to remain on store shelves or in homes. The CPSC stated that parents should no longer use these baby loungers and that they can contact the Boppy Co. to obtain a full refund.

The Boppy recall highlights products liability issues

If a person is injured by a defective product one avenue of compensation, they may want to learn more about is filing a products liability lawsuit. In such a lawsuit any party that played a role from the design of the product to the time it is sold may be held liable for the damages these products cause. A product can have a design defect, manufacturing defect or a defect in marketing. Products liability lawsuits can hold defendants responsible based on the tort of negligence, strict liability or breach of warranty or fitness. Often this depends on state law, because federal law does not address the issue of products liability.

Learn more about your rights if you are injured by a defective product

It remains to be seen if any legal action will be taken against the Boppy Co. following these recent deaths. However, when a person is injured by a defective product it may be possible to file a products liability lawsuit. Depending on the circumstances a lawsuit can be a viable way to obtain all the compensation you are entitled to.

The recall

Phillips, a large manufacturer of medical equipment, announced the recall of its DreamStation CPAP in June of this year. The recall was triggered by the discovery of a defect in the CPAP that could threaten the health of users. The defect concerned the nature of the material used to provide sound abatement inside the CPAP machine. Testing by Philips showed that the foam used to provide sound abatement often degraded into small particles that entered the breath passageway. The small particles could easily be swallowed, and the foam could release harmful chemicals into the user’s airway.

User alarm

When users of the DreamStation CPAP learned of the recall, they were very concerned. They faced the double problem of losing a valuable medical device and facing the possibility of adverse medical effects. Philips has said that it has received a “limited number” of reports of possible patient impact, but it has not announced a replacement for the DreamStation. Philips said that it had begun a “comprehensive communication program” to reach out to uses, but many such users denied receiving any notice from Philips.

The class action

Not surprisingly, several thousand users of the DreamStation have joined in two class actions against Philips. One of the lawyers for one of the classes said that the machine has caused “significant lung injuries” caused by the DreamStation. Philips has promised to create a repair and replacement program for users, but the program must first be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Anyone who is concerned about suffering an injury caused by a DreamStation may wish to consult an experienced product liability attorney about joining one of the existing classes of plaintiffs or commencing a new class action.

Sometimes when products do not work right or malfunction it creates a situation far worse than simply causing frustration. Sometimes when products break they can injure the person using it or injure people around them. These injuries can be very significant in some situations as well and require significant medical treatment. People who are injured by these defective products may be able to receive compensation from the company responsible for the defect.

Types of product defects

Determining liability starts with determining the type of product defect that caused the product to malfunction. There are three main types of product defects. One is a design defect, which means there was something inherently dangerous about the product from the beginning due to the design. Manufacturing defects occur during the manufacturing process and occur because a part was missing or assembled incorrectly. Finally, there are marketing defects, which occur due to improper labels or poor safety warnings.

Many people in Maryland are injured by defective products every year. These victims deserve to be compensated for their injuries, but first people need to determine who is responsible. It is not always easy to determine this though. It may require an investigation into the issue, but it is essential to know the proper company to initiate the lawsuit against. Experienced attorneys understand this complicated process though and may be able to guide one through it.

Popular electric car being recalled

General Motors recently announced a recall of the popular Chevrolet Bolt. The car manufacturer is recalling over 50,000 of these cars manufactured between 2017 and 2019. The cars have a battery that is manufactured by a company in South Korea.

Recalled cars have a risk of catching fire

There have been at least five instances of fires caused by the high-voltage battery located under the rear passenger seat. The root cause of the fires is still not known but there have been two injuries as the result of the fires. One of the fires set the car owner’s house on fire as well.

Recommendations for owners

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is recommending that anyone who owns a Chevrolet Bolt should park the car outside and away from houses as a precaution. A software update will soon be available where the car’s battery will not be allowed to be charged at more than 90%. In the meantime, owners should change the vehicle settings in their 2017 and 2018 models to Hill Top Reserve and 2019 Bolt owners should change settings to enable Target Charge Level at 90%.

Product Liability attorney

Thousands of people across the U.S. are negatively affected by an unsafe product each year. Some are actually seriously injured or even killed. If a person believes they are the victim of a faulty product they may want to speak with a legal professional who is skilled in products liability. An attorney can help their client understand what happened to cause their unexpected injury and can legally hold the company responsible for their negligence.

In Virginia as elsewhere in the US, product liability lawsuits have rested on legal assessment tools to determine whether products are defective. Some scholars speculate which tools may be useful for claims concerning autonomous vehicles.

Consumer expectations test

Product liability has traditionally rested on the “consumer expectations test.” According to this legal tool, a court may determine whether a product is defective by measuring it against the expectations of a standard consumer. For example, if your new shoes fall apart from ordinary walking, this doctrine could define them as defective because this violates a reasonable consumer expectation.

Over time, this test has worked effectively for hundreds of product liability lawsuits. But over time, highly technical products began to enter the market, for which consumers did not yet have clear or reasonable expectations. For example, most consumers would not know what to expect from an artificially intelligent robot.

Risk-utility assessment

To solve this issue, courts introduced a new tool: Risk-utility assessment. When products do not yet have reasonable consumer expectations, courts may determine their defectiveness based on the balance of utility versus the risk of the product. In other words, if a product poses the potential for harm out of balance with its benefits to the user, it may be defective. Likewise, if a product’s usefulness dwarfs its possible hazards, it is most likely not defective.

Courts now commonly use a blend of these two assessment tools when ruling on product liability cases.

Autonomous vehicles

Autonomous vehicles, being so new on the market, do not yet have widespread consumer expectations, and it is unlikely that they will develop these expectations anytime soon.

As the Journal of Law and Mobility posits, this could result in res ipsa loquitur. Res ipsa loquitur is a legal concept denoting that the very incidence of something necessitates negligence.

Consumers’ only current expectation of autonomous vehicles is that they not fail, so using the consumer expectation test would result in all accidents falling on the manufacturer’s negligence. It is yet unclear what a reasonable expectation of them is to be.

For the moment, some scholars suggest that using the risk-utility tool would be a more reasonable measure, but only time will tell how courts in Virginia and the US come to determine product liability claims for autonomous vehicles.

Some victims look to the other driver whose negligence or recklessness contributed to or caused the injury. There could be another party to blame, at least in part: The cars’ manufacturers. 

Automotive recalls 

One look at the Cars.com list of recall alerts would be enough for anyone to see that some cars come off the assembly line with their fair share of defects. It is rare for more than a couple of weeks to pass without another recall announcement. 

In some cases, registered owners receive mailings or other communications about their vehicles’ defects. However, even major problems can slip past notice in the chaos of day-to-day life. 

Legal liability 

Owners of defective automobiles could face the risk of increased severity of injuries during a crash. Engineering, labeling, maintenance and design issues could even cause accidents in the first place. 

As explained on FindLaw, this could bring up an issue of product liability. Parties who benefit from the sale and design of vehicles could face legal and financial consequences if those vehicles cause injury that leads to loss. Basically, if someone were to make a dangerous car, they might have to pay whoever got hurt driving it. 

As explained in the FindLaw article, auto companies have a responsibility to make cars that perform as consumers would reasonably assume. In most crash situations involving product defects, people are using their vehicles as one would expect and are therefore entitled to compensation — despite what car-manufacturer lawyers might want others to believe. 

Understanding product liability laws and duty to warn will help you better understand when you may have a worthwhile civil claim. 

Negligence and liability 

If you have an adverse reaction to a medication that results in significant harm, you will first want to consider whether negligence on the part of the company caused the damage. For example, if you have an allergy to a certain substance and knowingly consume it in a medication, the injury would be the result of personal negligence. If however, the manufacturer failed to report the ingredient, you may have a more reasonable legal claim. 

Product liability cases for over the counter and prescription drugs generally fall into three categories: False or inadequate marketing, errors in medication design or mistakes in manufacturing. In all three of these situations, the law can hold drug companies responsible for resulting injuries. 

Learned intermediaries 

Drug manufacturers are responsible to warn potential consumers of side effects to their products. This applies to side effects of which the company is aware or should reasonably be aware. They often transfer this responsibility to doctors, nurses, pharmacists or others when drug representatives promote their products. These individuals become “learned intermediaries.” 

It can sometimes be difficult to determine the most responsible party when a drug causes harm. A good personal injury lawyer can help tease out the best route forward in these cases. 

Circumstantial evidence 

Injury is not always the cause of negligence. As such, plaintiffs are generally responsible to prove negligence in personal injury lawsuits. But when it comes to medications and product liability claims, there is rarely definitive proof of negligence. Because of this, most courts will allow circumstantial evidence and make logical deductions. 

When a plaintiff cannot identify the brand of the particular drug that caused a reaction, each manufacturer may be liable according to its percentage of sales in the area. Be aware of the statute of limitations for the jurisdiction where you bring your claim. For example, Maryland’s statute of limitations for product liability is three years. 

According to the lawsuit filed against J&J, not only has the pelvic mesh product caused physical harm, including bleeding and pain, it has also caused severe complications. Numerous women required expensive medical treatment or corrective procedures to remedy the physiological damage the J&J devices have caused. 

A legal action is often necessary to warn other consumers about a product’s dangers and to force regulators to investigate a company’s deceptive marketing practices. The lawsuit filed against J&J alleged that the company marketed its pelvic mesh products using deceptive tactics. Investigators found that the company failed to disclose the product’s medical dangers, which include eroding mesh, loss of libido, and the potential need for additional corrective surgery. 

As reported by ABC News, the company reached a $117 million settlement with the represented class, but its pelvic mesh products remain on the market. The settlement, however, requires J&J to disclose in its marketing practices the mesh products’ risks and potential dangers. By doing so, consumers may make informed decisions with their surgeons regarding the use of the product. 

Our page on consumer protection provides more information about your rights to use products safely and made aware of any potential risks. 

NPR explains a brake system failure may lead to certain models of Nissan Pathfinders, Muranos, Maximas and Infiniti QX60s to burst into flames. The issue seems to be a faulty seal that allows for brake fluid to leak. This then leads to an electrical short that could start a fire. While there are no reports from anyone of injuries, the potential is there since this is a serious hazard.

Under the recall, if you own one of these vehicles, there is nothing you can do currently to fix it as Nissan has not yet figured out how to stop the leak. Instead, the company recommends not driving the vehicle if the brake light comes on and keeping it away from structures or anything flammable if the light is on.

Nissan hopes to have a solution soon. You should receive a notice in the mail of what to do to fix the situation. Usually, such recalls result in free maintenance from car dealership that sells you make and model of vehicle. This information is for education and is not legal advice.