Product liability personal injury cases can have a significant impact on businesses and individuals. A product liability claim arises when a person suffers an injury or harm caused by a defective product. In these cases, the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of the product may be held responsible for the injury or harm caused by the defective product. Comparative negligence is a legal term that is frequently used in product liability personal injury cases. Understanding the role of comparative negligence is essential in successfully resolving a product liability case.
Table of Contents
What is Comparative Negligence?
Comparative negligence is a legal principle that allows the jury or judge to allocate fault between all parties involved in an accident or injury. Under comparative negligence, the injured person can recover damages from a defendant who is found to be at fault, but the amount of damages recovered will be reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to the injured person. In other words, if the injured person is found to be 25% at fault for their injury, their damages will be reduced by 25%.
How Does Comparative Negligence Apply to Product Liability Cases?
In product liability personal injury cases, comparative negligence can play a significant role. Suppose the injured person’s actions contributed to the injury despite the product’s defect. In that case, their damages may be reduced based on the percentage of fault attributed to them. For example, suppose an individual was injured by a faulty lawnmower while mowing their lawn. In that case, if they were found to have been using the lawnmower incorrectly, or without proper safety gear, their damages could be reduced based on their percentage of fault.
Types of Comparative Negligence
There are two types of comparative negligence; pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence.
Pure Comparative Negligence
In pure comparative negligence, the damages awarded to the injured party are reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to them, regardless of how much fault they are found to have contributed. For example, if an individual is found to be 50% at fault for their injury, their damages will be reduced by 50%.
Modified Comparative Negligence
Modified comparative negligence differs from pure comparative negligence in that there is a threshold or "bar" that a plaintiff must meet to recover damages. If the injured person’s percentage of fault is higher than the "bar," they will be unable to recover any damages. For example, in a case with a 50% bar, if the injured person is found to be more than 50% at fault, they will not be able to recover any damages.
Defenses used in Product Liability Cases
Manufacturers and retailers, in product liability personal injury cases, can use a defense known as contributory negligence or assumption of risk to argue that the injured person is wholly or partly responsible for their injury. Contributory negligence occurs when the injured person fails to exercise reasonable care for their safety. For example, if an individual uses a chainsaw without proper safety gear, the manufacturer may argue that the injured person is wholly or partly responsible for their injuries. Assumption of risk occurs when the injured person voluntarily assumes the risk of a known danger. For example, if an individual knowingly uses a product with defects, they may be unable to recover damages from the manufacturer.
Summary
In conclusion, comparative negligence is a legal principle that plays an essential role in product liability personal injury cases. Understanding comparative negligence is crucial to successfully resolving a product liability case. If an individual suffers an injury due to a defective product, manufacturers and retailers may use contributory negligence or assumption of risk as a defense. Plaintiffs must prepare a strong case and understand the nuances of the law to recover full damages for their injuries.