A confounding scenario for manufacturers in product liability litigation often arises when an employee is injured while using a powerful piece of equipment in a manner that is contrary to his instructions and training, as well as basic common sense. It should be easy for the equipment manufacturer to escape liability in such a scenario, but it isn't. In such cases, the employer often has immunity under the worker's compensation exclusivity bar, and the manufacturer of the machine that injured the worker is the de facto prime target of the plaintiff.

Despite what ostensibly appears to be clear misuse, assumption of risk, and even recklessness, such cases may present a challenge for manufacturers due to the complex nature of product liability laws and the limitations on defenses that are applicable in the workplace setting. This article will explore this conundrum and offer thoughts and suggestions regarding the best way to approach the defense of such actions. 

Enacted in 1987, New Jersey's Product Liability Act (PLA) provides a single cause of action for most product liability claims, subsuming product-based actions for common law negligence. N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1, et seq. The PLA provides a defense to design defect claims if the product's characteristics are known to the ordinary user and the unsafe aspect of the product that caused the harm is an inherent characteristic that an ordinary user would recognize. N.J.S.A. 2A58C-3(a)(2). However, this defense does not apply to "industrial machinery or other equipment used in the workplace." Id. Moreover, in general, workers injured on the job are not subject to the defense of comparative negligence in product liability actions under the PLA. See, Johansen v. Makita U.S.A., 128 N.J. 86 (1992). As demonstrated infra, the defense of assumption of risk is also severely limited in the context of the workplace. Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Machine Co., 81 N.J. 150, 167 (1979). The challenges facing manufacturers in the context of workplace accidents are readily apparent.