Defective Products/Dangerous Products

A product liability claim is one in which a person contends that a particular product is defective in some way and that defect has caused injury. You may recall a famous product liability claim that was brought against Ford Motor Company many years ago relating to its Pinto automobiles. Ford made an engineering decision to place gas tank on the Pinto in the rear of the vehicles, even though it knew that placing the gas tank in this location could result in serious injury to occupants if the vehicle was involved in a rear and collision.

Documentation was produced during litigation that Ford knew or should have know of that risk, yet made a conscious decision to continue to keep those vehicles on the road because it felt the overall financial benefit would weigh in its favor, even if it had to pay several million dollars in claims as a result of injuries.

The jury in one of those cases returned a very substantial award against Ford Motor Company for compensatory damages for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. The jury also awarded substantial punitive damages to punish Ford for its wrongful conduct in not taking the vehicles off the road or warning the public of the dangers associated with that vehicle.

Another fairly well know product liability case involved a McDonald’s restaurant. In that case, an elderly woman purchased a cup of coffee from a drive-in window at McDonald’s. She apparently placed that cup of coffee between her legs and subsequently spilled the coffee. The case received a good deal of attention because it was touted by the insurance industry failed to a runaway jury verdict. In fact, the insurance industry failed to disclose to the public that in that particular case the plaintiff had made an attempt to settle the case simply for her medical bills, which were substantial because she was hospitalized for over a week. McDonald’s, however, refused to entertain any reasonable settlement offers.

The evidence that was presented at trial was that McDonald’s had been warned many occasions that their coffee was approximately twenty degrees hotter than what was recommended by the local health department and was so hot it could cause third degree burns. In fact, the coffee served by McDonald’s was not just (135 to 140 degrees), but at 180 to 190 degrees was able to cook through all layers of skin within seven seconds. McDonald’s admitted that its coffee was 40 to 50 degrees hotter than is fit for human consumption and knew that more than seven hundred people, including babies, had been burned by its coffee. McDonald’s, however, refused to reduce the temperature of its coffee because it felt it sold more coffee at that level than it would at a lesser temperature.

The plaintiff in this case was an elderly woman who suffered third degree burns over six percent of her body. The state where that case was tried was a comparative negligence state. As such, the jury, having found the plaintiff partially negligent because of how she carried the coffee, reduced her verdict by a proportion that was due to her own negligence.

In addition to awarding a compensatory damage amount, the jury also awarded punitive damage against McDonald’s equal to its gross receipts of two days of coffee sales in order to teach it a lesson. The actual verdict in that case was $200,000 for compensatory damages and $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages. The punitive damage award was reduced by the court on a post-trial motion to $480,000. As a result of that verdict, McDonald’s reduced the temperature of its coffee.

A product liability claim may be founded upon negligence principles, but it may also raise a legal theory known as breach of warranty. Within the sale of a product there is either an express or implied warranty that the product is reasonably fit for the purpose for which it sold. If it turns out that the product is not reasonably fit for that purpose, then that may constitute a breach of warranty and give rise to claim for damages if someone is injured as a result of that breach of warranty. Breach of warranty claims technically are contract claims, but they may be asserted as part of a product liability lawsuit.

Normally, in a product liability claim, the plaintiff will need to present some expert testimony as to what the defect is in the product. For instance, in the Ford Pinto case, the plaintiff had to present expert testimony from engineers to establish that the placement of the gas tank in the rear of the vehicle was dangerous and was not good engineering.

If you or a loved on has been injured due to defective product it is important to contact a Cherry Hill product liability attorney right away. Protect your legal rights, contact a Philadelphia product liability lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew Ballerini for your free consultation.

The Law Office of Andrew A. Ballerini
Harvard Law Building
1522 Route 38, Suite 202
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-2214
Phone: 856-665-7140
Toll free: 800-989-5297 (LAWS)
Fax: 856-665-8885

Philadelphia Unsafe Product Philadelphia Unsafe Product Lawyer Philadelphia Unsafe Product Attorney Philadelphia Product Injury Philadelphia Product Injury Lawyer Philadelphia Product Injury Attorney Philadelphia Product Liability Philadelphia Product Liability Attorney Philadelphia Product Liability Lawyer Philadelphia Dangerous Product Philadelphia Dangerous Product Lawyer Philadelphia Dangerous Product Attorney