In Pennsylvania, this is an interesting question, when you focus on the concept of “fault.”
Normally, in personal injury cases, when a person is hurt, we look to blame someone who acted negligently, recklessly, or even intentionally and hurt the victim. However, when a person is injured by a product, whether it is an industrial product on a job site, a household product, or a defective automobile, the law in Pennsylvania treats the idea of “fault” differently.
What an Injured Person Needs To Prove.
For decades now, an injured person need not prove that a product designer, manufacturer, or seller acted negligently in the creation or sale of a product. The injured person need only prove that the product at issue was defective and unreasonably dangerous and caused their injury. There is no issue of fault, in the traditional sense. There is no need for the injured person to prove that the product manufacturer acted negligently when they designed the product. In fact, the product can be designed the same way that most, or all, of the other products in that industry are designed. That is not the issue.
If the plaintiff can prove that the product was “in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer,” as it was designed, and that the product caused the injury, the manufacturer and/or distributor of the product is legally responsible for the injured person’s damages. (Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A)
What the Courts Have Said.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reiterated this principle and stated it with even more clarity in Sullivan v. Werner Company, 306 A.3d 846 (2023).
The Sullivan Court held that a product manufacturer defendant could not present evidence that their product was in compliance with industry or government standards. This stands to reason, given the law in product liability, because adherence to government standards would be a defense in a negligence case, but products liability cases have nothing to do with negligence.
As the court stated, “strict liability may be imposed even if a defendant exercised ‘all possible care.’” “Strict liability,” as it is applied in the product liability context, imposes liability without fault. There is a clear and simple reason for this: the law in Pennsylvania seeks to protect consumers that purchase products in an increasingly diverse and complicated international marketplace, where the consumer has little ability to inspect products thoroughly before buying them.
It is the manufacturer and/or seller who has the ability to test alternative designs and produce and sell the safest possible products. This ability leads to the legal responsibility to design, manufacture and sell safe products, which also contain all of the necessary warnings to protect consumers and users.
Who, Ultimately, Bears Fault for Injury.
As the Sullivan court stated, strict liability for product manufacturers “reflects the ‘social and economic policy of this Commonwealth,’ which is that ‘those who sell a product (i.e., profit from making and putting a product in the stream of commerce) are held responsible for damage caused to a consumer by the reasonable use of the product. The risk of injury is placed, therefore, upon the supplier of the products.’”
This removes the concept of negligence and fault, in the traditional sense, from the equation, and is why the term “strict liability” applies. Like most legal issues, there is, of course, much grey area and nuance to product liability law in Pennsylvania, and it is constantly evolving.
Let’s Hold Them Responsible Together.
If you or a loved one have been hurt by a product, whether it was a machine in the workplace, a household product, or a vehicle that was designed in a way that made it unsafe, contact us today for a free consultation.
Text 215.372.8528
Call 215.981.0999
Message us through our website
We are here and ready to help.