The features that have exhibited a defect in a given item do not help with winning a product liability claim. What has resulted from emergence of those same features can help to strengthen such a claim.
What was the result? Was someone injured?
Personal Injury Lawyer in Kitchener is of the view that you should not expect to win a product liability claim if you have proof that you were almost injured while using the defective item. You must link the product’s defect to an actual injury, usually one sustained by the claimant.
What is the proof that the product was defective?
Was it missing a part when it came off of the assembly line? A manufacturing defect should be easy to prove. The defective item can be compared to the other items that got manufactured on the same day.
It could be that the product’s design destroyed its ability to function properly. That would be more difficult to prove. It might be necessary to consult some sort of specialist. Perhaps the product’s packaging did not contain the necessary warning, regarding a potential danger. Maybe the accompanying directions were incomplete. That possibility could shed some light on the reason for the product’s poor performance
Can it be shown that the defect caused the user’s injury?
What was the nature of that injury? Did it seem obvious that one of the product’s parts could have caused such harm to the user’s body? If a product did not have any sharp sides or corners, how could it injure the user’s skin? That is the sort of question that the plaintiff would have to answer.
Did the person that got injured follow the directions for using the allegedly defective item?
Product makers strive to create clear instructions for any product that needs to come with some guidance for the user. If the instructions were not clear, users could struggle to follow any words of guidance. As a result, the same product would not perform in the manner expected. Sometimes, the user has a chance to study other uses for a particular product. Doctors are known to do that, when trying to find a treatment for a patient. Still, the new use must be acknowledged and approved by members of the medical community.
Sometimes too, an alternative usage seems obvious. For instance, homemakers have shown that an old toothbrush can be used to scour a narrow strip, such as the area between the bathtub and the tile on the wall. True, a toothbrush was designed to clean the teeth. Still, that does not make it a dangerous object, if a homemaker should decide to use it while cleaning given sections of the house. That assumes, of course, that the homemaker’s cleaner was not toxic.