What A Defective Product Lawyer In NJ Can Do For ‘Failure To Warn Cases’ Based On Liability Theories

However, one important thing to be aware of is that what are the elements of the most common legal theories that are used in product liability claims? Well, the answer is in the following list:

It mainly consists of 4 elements and they are:

  • Strict liability
  • Negligence
  • Breach of warranty
  • Fraud

A consumer or client who has been injured by a defective product can ask their defective product lawyer NJ to apply either any of these theories to their case or can apply all the theories, there is no such hardcore rule as only one theory can be applied to the lawsuit. However, the fact remains that strict liability was designed to replace the negligence, so if any complainant files a lawsuit it is mostly considered under both the strict liability as well as the negligence theory.


  • Strict product liability

For a product liability case, the complainant must show that


  1. The product that was sold to the customer was already in a dangerous condition and was sold without discussing the warnings or harm about the product
  2. The seller expected that the product might reach the consumer without any changes in the product
  3. The complainant’s property or him/herself was injured due to the using of the defective product
  4. The above mention list will be considered in strict liability claims.
  • Negligence
  1. The suspect owed the litigant a requirement of reasonable care under the circumstances (i.e. creating or marketing a product free from dangerous defects and unknown risks)
  2. The defendant’s actions break the duty of reasonable care owed to the litigant
  3. The defendant’s breach was the most or sole reason behind the plaintiff’s injuries, and
  4. The litigant truly suffered some quite injury
  • Breach of warranty
  1. An implied or expressed warranty to the product
  2. The product was unable to meet the terms of a warranty
  • Fraud

For a fraud theory to prove in a defective product case, the complainant should prove these

  1. The suspect created sure representations concerning the merchandise
  2. Those representations weren’t true
  3. The suspect knew the representations weren’t true or unlikely to be true
  4. The suspect created the representations in order that the litigant would purchase the merchandise
  5. The litigant was even in hopping on the defendant’s representations, and
  6. The litigant was broken in a way as a result of the defendant’s false representations.

What Happens When A Manufacturer Fails To Adequately Warn The Potential Dangers Or Harm Of Its Products Use That Results To Injuries? – It Gives Rise To “FAILURE TO WARN” Cases!!!

The manufacturers, retailers, distributors, etc. can be held liable for failing in their duty to warn about the products harmful use, if a consumer suffers an injury and here are the 4 theories of being dealt with ‘failure to warn’ cases:

  • ‘Failure to warn’ in “Strict product liability claims”

Strict merchandise liability is that the rule governing client product injury lawsuits in most states. Underneath strict product liability, the suspect is held answerable for product defects in spite of whether or not the corporate or business acted negligently. A failure to produce adequate warnings is taken into account a product defect in strict liability cases.

Perhaps the foremost common dispute in strict liability cases involving a failure to warn is whether or not the chance of the injury the litigator suffered was obvious, or was fully unpredictable.


For example, a matchbook wouldn’t be needed to return with a warning stating that the matches would possibly begin a fireplace. In a very recent case, on the opposite hand, a car manufacturer was answerable for failing to warn that the seats in its automobile would possibly collapse backward in an accident if the motive force was overweight.

By admin