Manufacturers are Liable.
By Lawrence Landskroner

Accident Or Design?

When a person is injured because of a defective machine, drug, or other product that has been manufactured, the manufacturer of that product can be held responsible and strictly liable for his damages. Products liability is the concept of instituting lawsuits for injuries caused by defective products which have been manufactured and sold to the unsuspecting populace. Products liability actions are based on three different theories: negligence, usually involving design; warranties; and/or strict liability for the manufacturer of the product. The doctrine of strict liability is the new vista of consumer protection which has been created by law within the last 15 years and is becoming recognized in the courts nationwide. This doctrine of law is making the manufacturers of defective products such as machines, automobiles, and drugs responsible for the damages caused by their dangerous products.

If a product which presents an unreasonable degree of danger to the user is produced and sold, the manufacturer may be held liable for the defect in the design or manufacture of the product. Not only is the manufacturer of a defective product responsible under the theory that he should design it properly and produce it in a prudent manner, but the merchant who sells the product and warrants it to be fit for the purposes for which it is intended is also responsible, even though he had nothing to do with the manufacture of the product. When an automobile is manufactured in Detroit and shipped to a local dealer for sale, the dealer has a duty to inspect the automobile for possible defects. If the automobile is not inspected and a defective condition exists which causes injuries to the consumer, both the manufacturer and dealer may be held responsible for damages.

Many large corporations show a willful disregard for the safety and rights of the consumer. These corporations would rather continue producing dangerous, deficient products than correct the inadequacy and experience a loss in their products. An example of this is the Ford Pinto situation where the industry was aware and had actual knowledge of numerous accidents that had horribly injured and killed people, but hid its knowledge from the consumer. When the president of Ford was questioned as to why the company did not make the car safe his reply was, "The public doesn't buy safety." Such callous indifference should be rectified by the strict liability doctrine. In the interest of consumer protection, the general public policy underlying the doctrine of strict products liability as adopted by the courts is intended to allocate the risk where it belongs with the person who makes the product, and stands to profit from it .

Whatever happened to the old American adage, "I'll stand behind my products"? The attitude of manufacturers in our present time seems to be, "I'll stand behind my products unless I make it dangerously, shabbily, or unless it hurts somebody."

The philosophy that these industries would like to use is the rationalization that if other manufacturers make their products just as shabbily and defectively, then none of them will be held responsible for the injuries caused. The excuse of "other companies are making similar defective products" is no longer tenable. The courts are now making the manufacturers of these products liable not only for actual damages, but for punishment damages because the industry is not properly policing itself. Manufacturers in the past have suggested that they are dealing with quality control themselves, but that, of course, is like putting the fox into the henhouse with the chickens. Why should the industry set its own rules and standards, and then if these standards are not reasonable or safety oriented, automatically be excused? The wrongdoer will not get away with it simply by showing that there are others in his business who make the product just as poorly and shabbily. This is the reason for the doctrine of strict liability, which is to promote safety in products used by the public.

The manufacturer of a product, by marketing his product for use and consumption by the general public, has undertaken and assumed a responsibility toward any member of the consuming public who uses the product and may be injured by it. The public has the right to expect that the manufacturer will stand behind the product, and demand that the burden of injuries caused by the product be placed on those who make it. Fraud and concealment of defects or dangerous qualities of a product is wrong, and damage awards against manufacturers for such wrongful actions are proper.

We as a society are victims of a manufactured products liability crisis that has the sole intent of allowing the greedy to continue to take advantage of the needy. If the manufacturers persist in merchandising unsafe products with an eye only to their profits, they will continue to lose their pride in their finished products by those whom they have robbed to their health and dignity. The courtroom proves to be the final resort and the only protection for the unorganized mass of people.

Copyright (c) 1996 Lawrence Landskroner. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Lawrence Landskroner is prohibited.

The Law Firm of Lawrence Landskroner & Associates
Nationally Recognized Consumer Trial Advocates
55 Public Square - Suite 1040
Cleveland, Ohio
Phone: 216-241-7000 Fax: 216-241-3135
Toll Free: 888-241-7001
Email: lawrence@landskroner.com
Day & Night Service