If you have been injured by a defective product and are considering to sue the manufacturer to recover damages, you need to know that the manufacturer will most likely fight back by using certain product liability defenses.
Today, our Philadelphia defective product attorney from the Dan Doyle Law Group is going to review the most commonly used defenses an accused party uses in product liability lawsuits in Philadelphia and all across Pennsylvania.
Philadelphia product liability law allows people who have been injured by defective products to bring a lawsuit against the manufacturer and other parties involved in the chain of distribution if the person was injured due to the product’s design or manufacturing defect or the manufacturer’s failure to warn of danger.
Depending on how you were injured because of a defective product, there are certain commonly used defenses used by manufacturers and other accused parties in product liability cases.
Written warning or disclaimer as a product liability defense
More often than not, manufacturers argue that disclaimers and implied warranty protect them from any liability after users sustain injuries due to his or her use of the product. Depending on your claim, this type of defense is usually dismissed by courts in Philadelphia.
“Many manufacturers in Philadelphia do not understand that just because there is a written warning or disclaimer on their product does not mean that they cannot be held liable for manufacturing, design and marketing defects,” explains our Philadelphia product liability lawyer.
The plaintiff was not injured by the product
As an injured party, in order for your product liability claim to succeed, you need to successfully prove not only that the product was defective, dangerous, or inherently unsafe, but also that this particular defect or flaw resulted in your injuries.
More often than not, the accused party in a product liability lawsuit will argue that the plaintiff’s injuries have no relation to their product. Others may defend themselves by saying that the plaintiff’s injuries could not be reasonably predicted and therefore could not be prevented by making the product safer or warning consumers of the danger.
The injured did not use the product properly
Since Philadelphia follows a legal doctrine of comparative negligence, manufacturers, especially those who have trouble winning a product liability case, may attempt to argue that you (the injured party) were negligent, too.
While seemingly acknowledging the defect in their product, manufacturers try to reduce the total amount of monetary compensation by arguing that the injured party did not use the product in a reasonably foreseeable way. In some cases, this defense, if handled by skilled defense attorneys on the manufacturer’s side, can shift the majority of blame onto you.
That is why the importance of being represented by a Philadelphia product liability attorney cannot be overstated.
The injured party ‘assumed the risk’
Last but not least, the “assumption of the risk” defense is one of the trickiest product liability defenses out there, and usually requires lawyers with decades of experience behind their back to reach a settlement or verdict.
During a product liability lawsuit, the accused party may argue that the injured party assumed the risk or knew that his/her use of the product could lead to an injury or malfunction. This type of defense can work in product liability cases involving negligence and breach of warranty claims.
Have you been injured by a defective or dangerous product? Do not hesitate to contact the Dan Doyle Law Group and get a free consultation today. Let our experienced lawyers help you drive through all possible types of defenses that could be used by the liable parties. Call our offices at 215-987-3730 or complete this contact form.