Is Your Widget Putting the Company at Risk?

Under Connecticut law, the term “product liability claims” includes all claims or lawsuits brought for personal injury, death or property damage caused by the manufacture, construction, design, formula, preparation, assembly, installation, testing, warning, instructions, marketing, packaging, or labeling of any product. 

This definition casts a broad net and is intended to capture claims of personal injury and property damage arising out of defective products. 

Generally, a product is defective if it is “unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.”

Unreasonably Dangerous

Although this definition may seem vague, Connecticut courts typically use one of two tests to explain “unreasonably dangerous” to jurors.

For less complex products, courts apply the ordinary consumer expectation test, which asks whether an ordinary user’s experience supports an inference that the product fails to meet minimum safety expectations.

For more complex products, courts typically utilize the modified consumer expectation test which allows jurors to balance different risk and utility factors to determine if a product is defective.   

Defects generally fall into one or more of three categories: design, manufacturing, or warning and labeling.

Defects generally fall into one or more of three categories: design, manufacturing, or warning and labeling.

Regardless of the category, product liability claims can impose significant financial costs and damage to a company’s brand. 

As such, manufacturers should be proactive in guarding against these claims. 

No matter the type of product liability claim asserted by a plaintiff, certain special considerations should be top of mind.

Liability for Component Parts

If you are a component manufacturer, you can be held liable for product liability in two different scenarios: (1) if your component is defective itself or (2) if the integration of your component into another product renders it defective.  

Yes, that’s right–there could be absolutely nothing wrong with your component, but if it makes the finished product defective, you could be held responsible.

To mitigate against this type of liability, component manufacturers should carefully assess the insurance and indemnification provisions of their supply contracts. 

Notice of Claim Task List

When manufacturers receive notice of a new claim, the to-do list should essentially be the same every time.

First, determine whether your insurer(s) needs to be put on notice of the claim.

Second, consider retaining counsel if your insurer is not going to do that for you.

Third, Collect documents and other evidence that might be relevant to the claim.

This ensures that you are honoring your evidence preservation obligations.

This should include things like all design materials, testing and quality control records and communications. This ensures that you are honoring your evidence preservation obligations. 

Be Wary of Spoliation

Speaking of preservation obligations, if you have knowledge that a product liability claim is forthcoming or that one is pending, you must maintain relevant evidence.

That includes documents and tangible things.

Bottom line–err on the side of caution when it comes to preserving evidence.  

If relevant evidence is intentionally destroyed, you become exposed to a claim of spoliation and potential liability for additional monetary damages, sanctions, and adverse evidentiary instructions at trial.  

Bottom line–err on the side of caution when it comes to preserving evidence.  

Punitive Damages

Under Connecticut law, manufacturers sued in product liability are not only potentially responsible for monetary damages meant to compensate the plaintiff, but they could also be assessed with punitive damages meant to deter future conduct of a similar nature. 

Though the amount of potential punitive damages is capped at two times the amount of a plaintiff’s compensatory award, a significant compensatory award could mean an even more significant punitive award. 

Punitive damages can only be awarded if a manufacturer is found to have acted with reckless disregard for the safety of product users. 

That said, punitive damages can only be awarded if a manufacturer is found to have acted with reckless disregard for the safety of product users. 

Proving recklessness is subject to a higher evidentiary standard requiring intentional conduct by the manufacturer, which makes recouping punitive damages more difficult for plaintiffs. 

Government Contractor Immunity

A manufacturer may be able to assert the government contractor immunity defense to a product liability claim if (1) the United States approved the at-issue product’s specifications, (2) the product complied with those specifications, and (3) the manufacturer/supplier warned the U.S. about the dangers of the use of the product. 

Note that this is not a blanket defense for government contractors.  It only applies when the United States makes a discretionary determination about the product obtained from the manufacturer. 

If the U.S. simply orders an in-stock product, for example, the defense does not apply. 

---

For more information about Shipman’s manufacturing practice group, please contact Alfredo Fernández the chair of the firm’s Manufacturing Team (860.251.5353).