Not every defective product liability claim gets its support from the same theory. There are 4 different theories used in cases that focus on a product liability claim.
The theory based on breach of express warranty: This theorizes that the defective product had been sold to consumers in addition to one of 2 different combinations. The first combination is a written warranty or a stated guarantee. The second one is a warranty in the product’s marketing materials, or in an advertisement for the same product.
The theory based on breach of implied warranty: State law serves as the basis for this theory. According to that law, all products have a warranty imposed on them. According to that state-sponsored warranty, the consumer has been guaranteed access to a product that is suitable for the purpose that got indicated, when the consumer purchased that same suitable item.
The consumer does not get a written warranty. Instead the consumer infers the message that is implicit in a typical warranty. Consumers are expected to make that inference on the basis of the state law.
Strict product liability: This theorizes that the product was defective, and the defect caused the reported injury. If strict product liability were used to support a defective product liability charge, the plaintiff would not need to produce any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.
Negligence: The theorizing associated with the charge of negligence expands on a basic premise. According to that premise, an insufficient level of care was given to one or more of 3 different aspects of the product-creation process.
Product-creation often begins with the design process. A flawed design process would qualify as an example of negligence. The manufacturer is supposed to create multiple copies of the designed item.
Assuming a flawless design process, someone working in the manufacturing plant could make a mistake. Most manufacturing plants have a department that is charged with quality control. It is supposed to catch any mistakes. Still, if it overlooked a serious mistake, the manufacturer could be charged with negligence, as per Personal Injury Lawyer in Oakville.
Once manufactured, a product needs to be marketed to consumers. A mislabeling of the marketed item might qualify as negligence. The intent behind the mislabeling would determine the extents to which that act had approached the level of negligence. Suppose, for instance, that the evidence had demonstrated intent to achieve intentional misrepresentation. If that were to be the case, then a charge of negligence could be placed on either the marketer or the seller.
No law has stated that a lawyer can place a charge of negligence on just one aspect of the process used to create a given product. An attorney could uncover negligence in multiple aspects.