The first principle that we need to establish involves understanding when we are encountering a manufacturing defect. This is an important point because if this category is too broad, it might result in a customer fabricating a false manufacturing defect claim.
According to the second restatement of torts, a product contains a manufacturing defect “when it departs from its intended design even thought all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product.”
The basic principle of manufacturing defects is that, upon comparison, the defective product in a given product line will differ from appropriate products because firstly, design specifications where not followed. As a consequence of that defect, the product physically harmed the consumer.
If we closely examine the definition, we can easily deduce that this is not a negligence standard because it disregards the level of care that a manufacturer invests into the production process. Instead, it focuses on the result of that process: the product departs from the intended design. As a consequence of that departure, the produce physically harms the consumer.
Who bears this liability? This question depends on the common law in the state where you are developing your ideas, or where your business is headquartered. However, in California, for example, this liability could fall under the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer that sold the product.
The reason for such an approach is based on the inferior position that the consumer holds when compared to the manufacturer in order to facilitate filing claims under liability laws. Very often, the manufacturers are located far from consumers. However, the distributor, and certainly the retailer, is easier for the consumer to locate. Of course, it is cheaper for a consumer to sue a company in the consumer’s own jurisdiction.
Is there any defense for the manufacturer in this kind of liability? Yes, there are at least two reasonable defenses that can be presented by a manufacturer under this kind of claim.
First, a manufacturer can claim that the consumer did not use the product in a reasonable and appropriate way. To establish this defense, the manufacturer should prove that the consumer mistakenly used the product in a way that a reasonable person would not. For example, if an adult gets hurt because one fell from a swing manufactured for children, the adult would not have a claim because such products can clearly only withstand a given, maximum weight.
Second, a manufacturer can argue that the product was not the main factor which harmed the plaintiff. For example, if a consumer falls on a public street because there is a hole in the road, one cannot sue the shoe manufacturer for the injury because the damages and the product are not related.
Finally, the manufacturer warned the consumer about the potential harm that one could suffer. Often, we regularly see warnings concerning weight gain on candy and fast food wrappers. These claims are appropriately used in lawsuit defense because obesity is a proven result of abusing such foods, like eating too many candies or fast food cheeseburgers.
Reference: Legal Facts > What Kind of Warnings should be Contained on the Product?