The recent revelations against Toyota, stirred up a lot of controversy, and for some, shock. Generally, we don't expect the products we use to contain hazardous or dangerous consequences when they're placed into the sales market. Moreover, as consumers, we're tolerant of companies that quickly fix or replace their dangerous products. I think what infuriates most people, is when organizations try to cover up their mistakes. Consumers sue these manufacturers, under the principle that the manufacturers, not the public, should bear the burden of "paying" for their faulty products. These types of lawsuits are product liability claims.
In general product liability lawsuits, plaintiffs claim that the manufacturer failed to warn of the danger, or that the product contained a manufacturing/design defect, which makes it inherently dangerous.
In failure to warn claims, the plaintiff alleges that the product has specific warnings about the dangerous use of the product, but lacked a warning about the specific way the plaintiff got injured. Many people easily associate these types of claims with the McDonald's case about the spilled coffee. Casual hearers of the case question why someone could sue over hot coffee, as we all inherently know that hot coffee is hot. In the McDonald's case, the plaintiff alleged, and proved, that McDonald's super-heated their coffee beyond a reasonable sense of hot. Therefore, in essence, McDonald's failed to warn the consumer that the coffee was hot (e.g. over 300 degrees).
The second type of claim develops because of defects in the manufacturing or design of a product. Prime examples of these claims are the developing Toyota cases. In design or manufacturing claims, plaintiffs allege that the product is dangerous because the design or manufacturing process created defects in the product which could only be discovered after its public use. There are probably an infinite number of ways that manufacturers can "fail" to account for design or manufacturing defects, because of the types and "ingenuity" of consumers.
Defendant manufacturers however have some common defenses that they hope will minimize their exposure. The most common defense is misuse. The defendant will allege that the consumer misused the product, and therefore, the defendant could not reasonably foresee any of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.
The problem for defendants (and therefore the bonus for plaintiffs), is that strict liability applies to product liability claims. In our "manufacturer bears the burden" mentality, strict liability means that the defendant-manufacturer bears the burden of the costs of the injury, even if the manufacturer was not negligent in manufacturing the product.
This greatly relieves the plaintiff's burden, because instead of having a number of elements to prove, the plaintiff must now only show that the product caused, or was a factor in causing, the plaintiff's injuries. Oklahoma follows a general strict liability attitude toward product liability claims. In that sense, Oklahoma is a very favorable venue for plaintiff's product liability claims.
Many people will argue that these product liability cases, and sometimes their "excessive" verdicts, is good evidence that states needs tort reform. I've discussed (and here) some of the negative aspects of tort reform, although I favor some general changes to the current system.
Again, the general principle in these product liability claims is that because manufacturers benefit financially because of their products, they should bear the costs of damages that happen.
If you would like to discuss a product liability claim, our office can help. If you're a business who has a problem with a faulty product, our office can help. Contact us for more information.