Dangerous or Defective Products in Seattle

The job of an insurance adjuster is to minimize the impact of injuries caused by a dangerous construction site or defective product. Our job is to maximize your lawful compensation based on the extent of your injuries and the short- and long-term effects.

A person who suffered harm while using a product that was manufactured or marketed in a defective or dangerous way may be able to recover damages from the responsible party in a products liability-based personal injury suit.

Products liability law enforces the responsibility of a manufacturer, seller or distributor of goods to compensate users of those goods for injuries caused by defective or dangerous products that it placed into the stream of commerce. The basic idea underlying products liability law is that the companies providing the products are usually in the best position to prevent defective products from entering the marketplace, so if they fail to do so, they should be held accountable.

An experienced and knowledgeable personal injury lawyer at The Walthew Law Firm in Seattle, WA, can advise injured persons on whether they may have a claim against a product manufacturer or seller and can help them recover the damages to which they are legally entitled.

The plaintiff’s burden in a dangerous or defective product personal injury case

Although products liability law has evolved over the years, these cases are still challenging for plaintiffs. At one time, “caveat emptor” (literally translated as “buyer beware”) was the standard to which manufacturers were held. Today “strict liability” is imposed in appropriate cases.

Under a strict liability standard, manufacturers are responsible for injuries caused by defective or unreasonably dangerous products even if they were not negligent. In a products liability action, the injured person, or plaintiff, must prove, that there was a design or manufacturing defect in the product or that the manufacturer did not adequately warn consumers about the product’s possible dangers. In addition, he or she must establish, through relevant and credible evidence, that the product caused the injuries, and that he or she was using the product in the way it was intended to be used (or that the manufacturer should have anticipated that the product could be dangerous if “misused” in the way that it was).

Manufacturing defects are usually easier to prove than design defects. If a particular consumer’s gas fireplace explodes when first lit, for example, it is evidence that the fireplace was not manufactured as the designer intended it to be. A design-defect case, on the other hand, could arise if many or all fireplaces of a manufacturer’s particular model posed a threat of explosion. In a design defect case, the product may have been manufactured as it was intended to be, but the design was deficient or fundamentally inadequate in some way in which to pose unreasonable hazards to consumers.

Proving causation in a products liability case can be tricky. The plaintiff must establish that the product was defective when it left the hands of the defendant manufacturer, distributor or seller, and that the defect was the cause of the accident that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. If the injuries could have arisen from several potential causes, the plaintiff usually must establish that the product defect played a substantial role in bringing about the injuries.