New Jersey law provides an opportunity for an individual or family who suffered injuries because of a defective or dangerous product to recover damages against the manufacturer or supplier. These claims can be based on, among other things, harmful drugs, unsafe vehicles and items made dangerous by design flaws or defects. People who are injured because of these issues may seek compensation to help them recover. Lawsuits and publicity can also successfully protect others or effect a change in the product.
Product liability occurs when a manufacturer or anyone in the supply chain for a product is found liable for damages that are caused by a product. According to Cornell University's law library, plaintiffs must prove that a defect exists as part of the basis for a product liability lawsuit.
Thousands of products are recalled each year by manufacturers who either voluntarily recall items that may be dangers or are made to recall defective products by regulatory agencies. It can be impossible for consumers to keep up with the number of recalls, creating situations where consumers unknowingly use dangerous products. In most cases, the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the safety of a product, not the consumer.
Some residents of Burlington, New Jersey, may have wondered if their experience with a product could make for a product liability claim or lawsuit. The case law that makes up the current environment of product liability law was created over many years and continues to change. For example, a hundred years ago, product liability suits were uncommon. Today, laws and regulations to protect consumers take some responsibility off the buyer and place it on the manufacturer or distributor.
When a person or people suffer injuries due to dangerous products, they have a right to seek compensation for damages. New Jersey residents are likely familiar with product liability cases against drug companies. Recently, a woman sued Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation over their drug Fosamax. The jury in that case delivered a verdict for the defendant. According to the verdict, the jury found that the company was not responsible for the fact that the woman developed osteonecrosis in her jaw.