In order to hold a defendant liable in a product liability case, tort law traditionally has required an injured plaintiff to show that the named defendant manufactured, sold or distributed the product that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injury. Over the years, however, courts have established exceptions to this general rule. See, e.g., Thomas v. Mallett, 701 N.W.2d 523 (Wis. 2005) (lead paint manufacturers held liable under a market share liability theory even though the plaintiff could not prove which defendant manufactured injury-causing product).

Recently, several courts have further eased plaintiffs’ burden of proof by using theories of designer liability to hold companies responsible for injuries to consumers, even though the plaintiff could not show that the defendant manufactured, sold or distributed the product that caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]