Someone that has been injured by a manufacturing defect has the right to seek compensation for medical bills, as well as the care received during recovery and lost wages, plus any additional damages.
What are the significant features of a manufacturing defect?
It has resulted from a mistake that was not included in the same product’s design. That departure from the original design came about despite whatever precautions had been made, in order to prevent such an occurrence.
The item with the defect came out of a factory, after care had been taken to follow the designer’s wishes, to order the proper materials, to create an efficient assembly line, and to develop quality control guidelines.
If a consumer were to suffer harm by using that defective item, then the manufacturer could be sued for violation of strict liability standards. Yet a consumer’s submission of a defective product liability lawsuit would not guarantee the same consumer’s ability to win that same lawsuit.
In order for a plaintiff with a defective product liability lawsuit to obtain the desired result for such an action, that same plaintiff/consumer would need to prove the existence of the alleged defect.
As per personal injury lawyer in Lethbridge, showing the defective item to the jury, during a trial is essential. The display that the defect got introduced to the identified item following completion of the manufacturing process.
Sometimes a personal injury lawyer that has agreed to represent a plaintiff with a defective product liability case decides to make use of the manufacturers’ doctrine.
According to that doctrine, if evidence indicates that the named defect caused the harmful accident, and if the evidence also eliminates any other cause for the same accident, then the plaintiff/victim can prove that the harmful incident had been caused by the existence of the product’s defective nature.
What arguments might a defense lawyer make, if a personal injury attorney has based a client’s case on the manufacturer’s doctrine?
That the allegedly harmful product had not been used in the way that it was supposed to be used.
That the consumer had failed to follow the directions, which had been placed on the product’s label, or inside of the package that held the harmful product
That the consumer had introduced the defect by mishandling the allegedly harmful item: For instance, that the consumer had dropped the product, before using it.
That the consumer had destroyed any precautionary measures that had been taken to ensure a typical consumer’s safety: For instance, that one of the consumer’s actions had managed to blur a certain warning. That could have been a warning that the company’s marketing department, had wanted placed on the product’s label.
That the accident had only frightened the consumer, instead of harming him/her.