By John J. Megjugorac, Esq.

If you are injured by a product, it is critical that you seek out competent legal representation to evaluate whether a products liability action can be brought against the manufacturer of the product.  At the Ginarte Firm, our attorneys have been practicing in the area of personal injury and products liability for over thirty years.  Our attorneys have the knowledge and experience to successfully prosecute your personal injury claim, no matter the complexity of the case.

Under strict products liability, a manufacturer has a duty to ensure that the products it places into the stream of commerce are safe when used for their intended purposes. N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-2.  The existence of a defective condition is necessary for a plaintiff to recover under a strict tort liability theory.  To succeed under a strict liability design-defect theory, a plaintiff must prove “that the product was defective, that the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control, and that the defect caused injury to a reasonably foreseeable user.” Feldman v. Lederle Labs., 97 N.J. 429 (1984).  Whether a design defect is found to have been present in the product will depend on an examination of the so-called “risk utility analysis,” i.e., a relative weighing of the risks inherent in a product design against the utility, value and efficiency of the product as designed and the availability of technologically and economically feasible alternative designs. Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Machine Co., 81 N.J. 150 (1979).

A product is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or a predecessor or in the commercial chain of distribution and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe. Smith v. Keller Ladder Co., 275 N.J. Super. 280, 284 (1994) citing Restatement (Third) of Torts § 2(b) (Tent. Draft No. 1 1994). The determination of whether strict liability applies is made by balancing the magnitude of the risk created by the dangerous condition against the social utility attained by putting the product on the market. Beshada v. Johns-Manville Corp., 90 N.J. 191, 199 (1982). Strict liability attaches if the product’s utility is outweighed by the magnitude of the risk involved in the case. Freund v. Cellofilm Properties, Inc., 87 N.J. 229, (1981).  Risk utility analysis is especially appropriate in cases when a product may function satisfactorily under one set of circumstances and yet, because of a possible design defect, present an unreasonable risk of injury to the user in other situations. O’Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169, 181 (1983).

If you have been injured by a product or by the negligence of another, contact the Ginarte Law Firm today at 1-888-(GINARTE) or use our online contact form.