Legal Definitions - strict products liability

Strict products liability is a legal principle that holds manufacturers, distributors, and sellers responsible for injuries caused by defective products, regardless of whether they were negligent in producing or selling the product. This means that an injured person does not need to prove that the company acted carelessly or negligently; instead, the focus is on the product itself being unreasonably dangerous due to a defect. To succeed in a strict products liability claim, an injured party generally needs to prove that the product was defective, the defect caused their injury, and they were using the product as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable way.

Here are some examples illustrating strict products liability:

• Example 1: Manufacturing Defect

  A consumer purchases a brand-new electric kettle. During its first use, the kettle's handle unexpectedly breaks off, causing boiling water to spill onto the user's hand and resulting in severe burns. An investigation reveals that a specific batch of kettles had a flaw in the plastic molding process, leading to a weakened handle attachment on that particular unit.

  How it illustrates: The kettle manufacturer could be held strictly liable for the consumer's injuries. The consumer does not need to prove that the manufacturer was careless or negligent in its factory operations. They only need to demonstrate that the specific kettle they purchased had a manufacturing defect (the weakened handle), that this defect caused the handle to break, and that the breaking handle led to their burns while using the kettle as intended.

• Example 2: Design Defect

  A company designs and sells a popular model of lawnmower. The design incorporates a safety guard that, under certain common operating conditions (like mowing on a slight incline), can become dislodged, exposing the rotating blades. Several users have suffered foot injuries when the guard detached during normal use.

  How it illustrates: The lawnmower manufacturer could face strict products liability claims. In this scenario, the defect is in the *design* of the lawnmower itself, not a mistake made during the production of a single unit. Even if every lawnmower was manufactured perfectly according to the design specifications, the design itself makes the product unreasonably dangerous. Injured parties would not need to prove the manufacturer was negligent in designing the lawnmower, only that the design was defective and caused their injury.

• Example 3: Failure to Warn (Marketing Defect)

  A homeowner buys a powerful adhesive for DIY projects. The product's label provides instructions for use but fails to include a warning that prolonged skin contact can cause severe chemical burns, even though this is a known risk. The homeowner gets some adhesive on their skin, ignores it due to the lack of warning, and develops a serious burn requiring medical treatment.

  How it illustrates: The manufacturer of the adhesive could be held strictly liable for the homeowner's injuries due to a "failure to warn" defect. The product itself might not be defective in its manufacturing or design. However, its marketing (specifically, the absence of adequate warnings on the label about a non-obvious danger) makes it unreasonably dangerous. The injured party does not need to prove the manufacturer was negligent in *failing* to include the warning; they only need to show that the lack of warning made the product defective and led to their injury.