Every time that a claim is filed against a manufacturer, the plaintiff is usually requesting monetary compensation, which may be an extensive amount. As commonly known, there are three kinds of damages that could be awarded in a tort claim: economic damages, non-economic damages, and punitive damages.

1. Economic damages: or compensatory damages, attempt to reimburse the victim, awarding in his or her favor all the natural losses and direct consequences of the defendant’s wrongdoing. This category may include loss of wages, medical bills, damage of property, etc.
2. Non-economic damages: this kind of damage attempts to compensate the victim for any resulting pain, such as suffering, loss of companionship, love of a spouse, guidance of a parent, etc.
3. Punitive damages: are awarded as a punishment against the defendant, in this case a company, in order to dissuade the company from continuing such conduct in the future. The types of punitive damages awarded in the US aim to stop wrongdoers from repeating the illegal action that causes the plaintiff harm. These damages also serve as a warning to other potential defendants.

There are scholars who challenge the very existence of punitive damages, claiming that the practice is intrinsically unfair. Why should one plaintiff receive compensation when hundreds of individuals that suffered the same harms were not compensated?

Several explanations have been provided to remedy this problem when such cases enter the courtroom. First, in the cases of products liability, there is a low probability that wrongful conduct will ever be tried because the expenses of litigation are too high when compared to the low possibilities of wining such a case.

Second, because every consumer bears some of the harm, and it is difficult to identify how many individuals are suffering the consequence of the wrongdoing, the harm is often underestimated. This underestimation is based on the lack of information on the real harm experienced by the consumers.

Finally, as has been stated before, because the harm is divided among countless individuals, the damages are spread among this population. This results in relatively little individual incidences and cases. As a consequence of this, discussed in detail above, if punitive damages did not exist, the incentives to seek compensation would not exist either. This would protect corporations from the effects of harm suffered by their consumers as a result of faulty products.

Based on the particular characteristics of the wrongful acts behind a products liability case, the plaintiff’s attorney would try to get punitive damages against the manufacturer for several reasons. First, these awards are substantially bigger than those offered by economic and non-economic damages. Second, courts usually compensate a consumer for the damages that he or she suffered and also award damages to a number of consumers that also suffered the same harm. For example, in the case of Phillip Morris USA v. Williams, one smoker was awarded punitive damages over $79.5 million. Finally, the attorneys would prefer this strategy because the plaintiff’s lawyer charges their clients over the results of the procedures instead of a fix fee.

Reference: Legal > Milk, Coffee and Punitive Damages

The first principle that we need to establish involves understanding when we are encountering a manufacturing defect. This is an important point because if this category is too broad, it might result in a customer fabricating a false manufacturing defect claim.

According to the second restatement of torts, a product contains a manufacturing defect “when it departs from its intended design even thought all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product.”

The basic principle of manufacturing defects is that, upon comparison, the defective product in a given product line will differ from appropriate products because firstly, design specifications where not followed. As a consequence of that defect, the product physically harmed the consumer.

If we closely examine the definition, we can easily deduce that this is not a negligence standard because it disregards the level of care that a manufacturer invests into the production process. Instead, it focuses on the result of that process: the product departs from the intended design. As a consequence of that departure, the produce physically harms the consumer.

Who bears this liability? This question depends on the common law in the state where you are developing your ideas, or where your business is headquartered. However, in California, for example, this liability could fall under the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer that sold the product.

The reason for such an approach is based on the inferior position that the consumer holds when compared to the manufacturer in order to facilitate filing claims under liability laws. Very often, the manufacturers are located far from consumers. However, the distributor, and certainly the retailer, is easier for the consumer to locate. Of course, it is cheaper for a consumer to sue a company in the consumer’s own jurisdiction.

Is there any defense for the manufacturer in this kind of liability? Yes, there are at least two reasonable defenses that can be presented by a manufacturer under this kind of claim.

First, a manufacturer can claim that the consumer did not use the product in a reasonable and appropriate way. To establish this defense, the manufacturer should prove that the consumer mistakenly used the product in a way that a reasonable person would not. For example, if an adult gets hurt because one fell from a swing manufactured for children, the adult would not have a claim because such products can clearly only withstand a given, maximum weight.

Second, a manufacturer can argue that the product was not the main factor which harmed the plaintiff. For example, if a consumer falls on a public street because there is a hole in the road, one cannot sue the shoe manufacturer for the injury because the damages and the product are not related.

Finally, the manufacturer warned the consumer about the potential harm that one could suffer. Often, we regularly see warnings concerning weight gain on candy and fast food wrappers. These claims are appropriately used in lawsuit defense because obesity is a proven result of abusing such foods, like eating too many candies or fast food cheeseburgers.

Reference: Legal Facts > What Kind of Warnings should be Contained on the Product?

We know that the misuse of any product can potentially harm a consumer, as using a product improperly could yield very dangerous results. However, under design defects, the reliability and make of the product is more profound because an injury itself it is not enough to constitute a proper claim. To construct a claim on the basis of design defect, one needs to prove that the product was already problematic when it left the control of the manufacturer. This challenges the way in which the product was made and its intended use from the onset. Such claims argue that from the moment of its conception, the product itself resulted in the harmful effects suffered by the consumer. This is different from a manufacturing mistake, where a product is made that is dangerous for public use.

Under this argument, the plaintiffs construct their theory, alleging that the product itself contained harmful risks, and that these harms could be avoided if its design was modified by the manufacturer. Such design changes would be reasonable with customary design change practices, where a manufacturer simply opts for a safer alternative design.

In this case, the claim it is not against the existence of the product, but the negligence of the manufacturer. This negligence occurred when the manufacturer failed to opt for an alternative design that could have made the product reasonably safer for the consumer.

It is possible to challenge the product’s specifications, construction, or even the choice of materials carried out by the manufacturer.

This claim it is based on the principle that the consumer has reasonable expectations that the products would function as safely as possible, depending on the product’s characteristics. However, this product exceeded normal risks, turning into a hazard for its consumer. For example, we would not expect a manufacturer to use hazardous materials, such as lead, on a toy meant for toddlers, who will probably bite the toy, resulting in possible contamination. In this case, we would expect that the toy factory opts for an alternative design that only uses materials appropriate for children of the toy’s target age group.

This example shows that the risk of poisoning is a feasible result, so it is clear that the manufacturer could be held liable for such a design error. Here, the benefits of the design cannot compare with the risks of the design, and the disadvantages and likelihood of harm are apparent.

However, these sorts of claims are very difficult to prove because they are unlike manufacturing defects, where a series of well constructed products are available for comparison with the defective one that caused harm. In this case, you are challenging the way in which the perfectly manufactured product behaves, and to do so successfully, the Supreme Court requires that you propose an alternative design that could have substituted the one selected by the manufacturer. In any case, this does not mean that one needs to become a designer in order to create a novel product. One simply needs to point out how any differences in the design would have negated the harmful outcome in the particular case.