Sometimes a consumer becomes startled by the way that a given product has responded, after its “on” button has been hit. It could be that the same product was defective in some manner. Still, the startled consumer might lack any grounds for making a case against the manufacturer.
Liability for defective products
There are 4 theories of liability. A consumer has the ability to use one or more of those same theories, when arguing a defective product claim as per personal injury lawyer in Oakville.
The 4 theories of liability
Manufacturer has breached an express warranty. This should be a written warranty of guarantee. It could appear anywhere that a consumer might see it. It would not have to be on the purchased item. The guarantee could be posted on a display, or on a page in a manufacturer’s website.
Manufacturer has breached an implied warranty. Usually, the state had imposed the implied warranty. The state expects a manufacturer to live up to a consumer’s expectations. For example, a consumer has the right to assume that a marketed product is fit for utilization, as sold.
Alternately, a consumer might ask if a product on the shelves is fit for a particular purpose. If the retailer says “yes,” then the buyer/consumer has the right to assume that the “yes” answer is a guarantee.
Strict liability: If a consumer uses this particular theory, then the same plaintiff/consumer does not have to show evidence of negligence, on the part of the manufacturer, the designer or the marketer.
Misrepresentation or fraud: This theory applies to a time when the manufacturer knew about the existence of a given defect, but chose to market that defective product, anyway.
The common element in any successful attempt to use one of the above theories
No one that hopes to win a defective product claim should proceed with that claim, if he or she did not get injured, while trying to use the item with the defect. Even if the item came close to causing a severe injury, but still left you unhurt, you have no basis for a claim.
That fact holds true, regardless of what theory you might decide to use as the basis for your case. For example, if your product’s warranty stated that it should function well for 5 years, and it stopped working on the week following that 5-year mark, you could not make a defective product claim. That assumes, of course that you did not get hurt, when the item with the warranty ceased to function.
Suppose that a manufacturer knew about a defect, and still marketed the item with the known problem. An injury-free consumer should not expect to win a defective product claim against that particular manufacturer.