Manufacturers don't concede liability easily. They deploy various legal defenses to avoid or minimize responsibility for injuries caused by their products. Understanding these defenses helps you anticipate challenges to your claim and work with your attorney to overcome them.
No Defect Existed
The most fundamental defense is simply denying that the product was defective. Manufacturers argue their products met all applicable standards, followed industry practices, and posed no unreasonable danger.
Countering this defense requires strong expert testimony establishing that a defect existed, what caused it, and how it differed from properly designed or manufactured products.
Product Misuse
Product misuse argues that the plaintiff used the product in a way the manufacturer couldn't have anticipated, and this unforeseeable misuse—not any defect—caused the injury.
However, manufacturers must anticipate and design for foreseeable misuse. Using a screwdriver to pry open a paint can is foreseeable even if not the intended use. Only truly unforeseeable misuse provides a complete defense.
Additionally, misuse that's discovered by the manufacturer after sale creates a duty to warn existing users of the danger.
Assumption of Risk
Assumption of risk argues the plaintiff knew about the product's danger and voluntarily chose to encounter it anyway. To succeed, the defendant must prove the plaintiff actually knew of the specific risk, understood its nature and severity, and voluntarily chose to encounter it.
Assumption of risk rarely provides a complete defense in product cases because consumers typically don't have detailed knowledge of product hazards and cannot "assume" risks they don't know about.
Comparative or Contributory Negligence
Defendants argue plaintiffs' own negligence contributed to their injuries. In comparative negligence states, plaintiff fault reduces recovery proportionally. In the few remaining contributory negligence states, any plaintiff fault may bar recovery entirely.
Comparative fault can arise from ignoring warnings, using products contrary to instructions, failing to maintain products properly, or removing safety guards or features.
However, manufacturer negligence in design often outweighs consumer negligence in use. Juries allocate fault between parties based on relative culpability.
State of the Art Defense
The state of the art defense argues the manufacturer used the best available technology and knowledge at the time of manufacture. If safer designs weren't feasible or known hazards weren't discoverable, the manufacturer shouldn't be liable.
This defense has limited application in strict liability cases where fault isn't at issue. Courts evaluate whether alternative designs were available and feasible, not whether the manufacturer did its best.
Compliance with Standards
Manufacturers argue that meeting government safety standards or industry codes proves their products were reasonably safe. Compliance with standards is evidence of reasonable conduct but not a complete defense.
Minimum standards may not reflect optimal safety, and manufacturers may have known of hazards that standards didn't address. A product can meet all applicable standards and still be defectively designed.
Statute of Limitations
Time-based defenses argue the claim was filed too late. Statutes of limitations bar claims filed after deadlines expire. Statutes of repose may bar claims for injuries from older products regardless of when injury occurred.
These defenses underscore the importance of acting promptly. Delay can destroy valid claims.
Alteration or Modification
If the product was altered or modified after leaving the manufacturer's control, defendants argue the modification—not any original defect—caused the injury. This defense requires proving the product was substantially changed and the change caused the harm.
Foreseeable modifications don't provide a complete defense. Manufacturers must anticipate that products may be modified in certain ways and design accordingly.
Overcoming Defenses
Anticipating and preparing for defenses is essential for successful claims. Your attorney will gather evidence countering expected defenses, develop expert testimony addressing technical issues, depose defendant witnesses about their knowledge and conduct, and build a trial presentation that preempts defense arguments.
Strong preparation turns defense arguments into opportunities to show the jury how manufacturers try to avoid accountability. Understanding what you're up against helps you build the strongest possible case.