This Michigan product defect lawsuit office can establish that a product was defective, and that the product defect caused your injury
Michigan product defect lawsuits require a finding of a defect in a product that causes an injury. The defect in the product may be established through various theories that include the following: (i) negligent design of the product, (ii) negligent manufacture of the product, (iii) negligent failure to warn about some aspect of the product, (iv) breach of a warranty, or (v) misrepresentation or fraud regarding the product.
With regard to a negligent product design legal theory, the ultimate question is whether the design of the product created an unreasonable risk of foreseeable injury. According to the United States Court of Appeals, to establish that a product producer negligently designed a product, a Michigan lawsuit attorney must establish the following:
that the severity of the injury was foreseeable by the manufacturer; (2) that the likelihood of occurrence of [the] injury was foreseeable by the manufacturer at the time of the distribution of the product; (3) that there was a reasonable alternative design available; (4) that the available alternative design was practicable; (5) that the available and practicable reasonable alternative design would have reduced the foreseeable risk of harm posed by [the] defendant’s product; and (6) that omission of the available and practicable reasonable alternative design rendered defendant’s product not reasonably safe.
Unlike with a negligent design product defect lawsuit, a negligent manufacture product defect lawsuit is based on a claim that the defective product was designed satisfactorily, but the product was manufactured in a way that differed from the design, and thereby created an unreasonable danger. Under Michigan law, a Michigan lawsuit attorney pursuing a negligent manufacture product defect lawsuit would have to establish that the manufacturer “failed to manufacture its product so as to eliminate any unreasonable risk of foreseeable injury…” A “defect” may be proven “if the product is not reasonably fit for its intended, anticipated or reasonably foreseeable use.” So to succeed with a negligent manufacture product defect lawsuit theory, a Michigan lawsuit attorney must show that the manufacturer failed to do what a reasonable manufacturer would have done in producing the same product.
Michigan product defect lawsuits based on the “failure to warn” theory often arise when the dangerous product feature that caused the injury cannot be eliminated, but the producer of the product failed to warn of the danger despite the foreseeability of the injury. Michigan courts have described the duty to warn of a product danger as “imposing an obligation on sellers to transmit safety-related information when they know or should know that the buyer or user is unaware of that information.” However, Michigan courts have ruled that a warning does not make a product safe, and does not necessarily defeat product defect lawsuits based on other liability theories.
The remaining two product defect legal theories, breach of a warranty and misrepresentation or fraud, are simple. A breach of warranty legal claim arises when an express or implied representation about the product is false, and that falsehood causes or contributes to the injury. A misrepresentation or fraud legal theory is similar: the Michigan lawsuit attorney must establish that the defendant made a relevant representation regarding the product, the representation was false, the defendant knew it was false or made it recklessly, the defendant intended for the injury victim to rely on the representation, and the injury victim acted in reliance on it.