Attorneys Helping Consumers Of Bad Products Sue For Their Injuries
- Our law firm is considered one of the best law firms in the state because of our high professional standards and commitment to our clients.
- We have been praised by the National Trial Lawyers Association, Boston Magazine, Law and Politics Magazine, and more.
- Our top attorneys are well-known in the legal community because of their honest and aggressive representation.
- If you have been injured by a defective product, seek legal representation from an award-winning attorney in our office today.
- Learn what it’s like to work with a lawyer in our office by reading the client reviews on our website. We have also earned [rscore rev=49]
Below are some questions our lawyers frequently receive about product liability lawsuits
- What is Product Liability?
- What Does A Product Liability Law Firm Do?
- What Are The Different Types of Product Defects?
- What Are the Most Common Types of Product Liability Cases?
- How Can A Attorney Prove Liability When Suing A Company For Negligence?
What is Product Liability?
The term “product liability” refers to the liability of manufacturers, designers and/or sellers of products for injuries or death resulting from the use of their products. Products that have been the focus of such claims include motor vehicles, manufacturing equipment, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, toys, construction equipment, sports equipment, recreational and playground equipment, along with hundreds of other kinds of consumer and commercial products. In recent years, notable product recalls have included Toyota cars, peanut butter, products that cause hair damage, and many children’s toys.
Eric Parker is a gifted attorney. With keen intellect, legal experience, genuine compassion and an incredible team he offers top representation.
– Eric Hason
People can sustain serious injuries from defective products that can greatly affect their lives. If you have been injured by a defective product, schedule a free consultation with a skilled product liability attorney at Parker Scheer LLP right away. You may be entitled to compensation for your medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and more.
What Does A Product Liability Law Firm Do?
What is a product liability lawyer? This is a type of lawyer that represents clients in cases involving defective products. It’s important to work with an attorney because product liability cases can present a number of challenges.
One of the most challenging parts of a product liability case is determining what type of defect caused the victim’s injuries. It’s imperative to determine the type of defect in order to identify the liable parties in the case.
To do this, an attorney may need to conduct a thorough investigation and call upon expert witnesses for their advice. After liability has been identified, the attorney will begin the process of negotiating with the defendant.
Without an attorney, you may not know how to accurately value your claim or prove that you’re entitled to compensation. Product liability attorneys are skilled negotiators who will aggressively fight to ensure that you receive the compensation that you deserve.
What Are The Different Types of Product Defects?
There are three different forms of product defects. Some occur at the design and manufacturing stage, while others occur later on in the process. Design defects include any way in which the product design would pose a hazard to a consumer who used it. If the product that causes you harm has a defective design, the product designers would be liable for your injuries.
Manufacturing defects are also common. Manufacturing claims range broadly and include anything that happens during the manufacturing process that makes the completed product a hazard, including improper material selection. If the product has a manufacturing defect, it means there was nothing wrong with the design, there were simply errors made during the production of the product.
The third type of defect is a marketing or failure to warn defect. These claims stem from the manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer failing to properly warn the use of a potential hazard or dangers of improper use. If the product that causes you harm does not have an adequate warning label, either the manufacturer, retailer, or wholesaler could be liable. A defect at any of these stages can lead to an injury or death for the consumer.
Product defects vary greatly. Some occur at the design and manufacturing stage, including a failure to include proper warnings, confusing instructions, faulty construction and poor design. Design defects include any way in which the product design would pose a hazard, including the product itself and the packaging. Instructions claims stem from the manufacturer failing to properly warn the use of a potential hazard or dangers of improper use. Manufacturing claims range broadly and include anything that happens during the manufacturing process that makes the completed product a hazard, including improper material selection. A defect at any of the stages can lead to an injury or death for the consumer.
In Massachusetts, cases brought on behalf of persons injured or killed as a result of defectively designed and/or manufactured products are commonly predicated on theories of negligence and “breach of warranty.” The governing product liability cases provide that a manufacturer of a defective product is legally responsible to persons injured or killed as a result of a product used as intended by the manufacturer or in a way that the manufacturer should reasonably have expected the product to be used. The question of “foreseeability” on the part of product manufacturers and designers is among the most hotly contested issues among lawyers engaged in product liability litigation. This foreseeability applies to all three major areas that the defects usually arise from: design, instructions and manufacturing.
The types of defective products cases most commonly fall under one of the following major categories:
- Defective medications
- Defective medical devices
- Defective motor vehicles
- Defective food processors
- Defective sports equipment
- Defective toys
- Defective products subject to “Product Recalls”: This occurs when the manufacturer of a product finds a defect and recalls what has already sold, often in an effort by the company to limit liability for negligence and avoid negative publicity.
Lawyers at Parker Scheer LLP have successfully represented clients injured and killed as a result of a wide range of defective products. If you or a loved one have been injured or killed by a defective product, it’s important to get experienced representation. When choosing a lawyer to handle your product liability case, choose a firm with an established record of success. Choose the law firm of Parker Scheer LLP.
How Can A Attorney Prove Liability When Suing A Company For Negligence?
In Massachusetts, lawsuits brought on behalf of persons injured or killed as a result of defectively designed and/or manufactured products are commonly predicated on theories of negligence and “breach of warranty.”
The governing product liability cases provide that a manufacturer of a defective product is legally responsible to anyone who is injured or killed as a result of a product used as intended by the manufacturer or in a way that the manufacturer should reasonably have expected the product to be used.
The question of “foreseeability” on the part of product manufacturers and designers is among the most hotly contested issues among lawyers engaged in product liability litigation. This foreseeability applies to all three major areas that the defects usually arise from: design, marketing, and manufacturing.
PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION IN THE AGE OF DAUBERT AND LANIGAN
As a product liability attorney in Boston, MA, I can tell you like the very products they address, the laws governing defective product liability are constantly evolving. New products, employing even newer technologies, have given rise to failures and resulting injuries that, just a decade ago, were all but unimaginable. Unlike the product failures of yesteryear, which included failed automotive airbag deployment, tire tread failures, and children’s pajamas that burn, the products of the 21st century now involve defective vision-correcting lasers, design errors in computer microprocessor and semiconductor manufacturing, and cellular tower radiation. Just who the courts now allow testifying as “expert witnesses” in these more complex cases has become the subject of intensive debate in courtrooms throughout the United States, including the nation’s highest court.
To successfully prosecute a defective product liability case in nearly every jurisdiction, including Massachusetts, the plaintiff’s product liability attorney must be prepared to prove several required “elements” of the claim to succeed at trial. While the nature of these elements may vary somewhat from state to state, the outcome of a product liability case in virtually every jurisdiction typically hinges on the quality of the expert witness testimony offered at trial. Just what is meant by “quality expert testimony” was the subject of a major U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the case of Daubert et ux., individually and as guardians ad litem for Daubert, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as adopted by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the case of Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (1994) and In Re: Case of Canavan, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 297 (1999).
In essence, the Daubert case held that just because someone holds himself out as “an expert” does not, by itself, qualify that person to testify as to theories and opinions that may be honestly held, but do not have the support of the relevant scientific community most qualified to render such opinions.
Take, for example, the case of a 28-year-old woman in her fourth week of pregnancy who undergoes an emergency MRI resulting from a minor motor vehicle accident. Two weeks later, the woman miscarries, leading to deep feelings of personal loss and depression. The woman retains a Massachusetts product liability lawyer to investigate two distinct theories as to the cause of her miscarriage: first, that the MRI machine may have somehow caused the resulting miscarriage and, second, if not the MRI, then the car accident itself was to blame. The woman’s product liability attorney then sets out to locate a qualified medical expert to obtain an opinion as to whether the most likely cause of the miscarriage was the MRI or the initial trauma suffered in the motor vehicle accident. After much searching, the woman’s product liability lawyer locates a physician, who, based on his knowledge, training, and experience as a board-certified obstetrician, with more than 30 years of experience treating pregnant women, is prepared to offer his “expert opinion” that the MRI or the trauma caused by the car accident was the most likely causes of the plaintiff’s fetal demise.
In response, the defense turns to its own board-certified obstetrician of comparable experience, education, and training, who is prepared to testify in court that in his “expert medical opinion” neither the MRI nor the trauma of the motor vehicle accident had any causal connection to the woman’s miscarriage. He bases his opinion on reams of medical data, which demonstrate that one in four pregnancies results in miscarriage during the first trimester, despite the absence of MRI exposure, physical trauma, or any other known cause. The defense expert also points to numerous articles in leading obstetrical journals and medical textbooks that further support his opinions. At trial, in a pre-Daubert era, the two witnesses would take turns on the witness stand, subject to the rigors of intense cross-examination by opposing counsel, after which the jury would simply decide which of the opinions they found more credible. But in the post-Daubert era, the rules have changed.
What Daubert and its Massachusetts companion, Lanigan, did was prescribe a new and heightened standard for the admissibility of expert trial testimony — one that requires substantially more in the way of corroboration and general acceptance in the relevant scientific, engineering, or other professional communities. In short, the decisions sought to keep “junk science” from the ears of less experienced jurors, a goal few would seek to challenge. Unfortunately, it is how the new standard has come to be utilized by opposing counsel that remains suspect.
In our earlier example of the woman’s miscarriage, the plaintiff’s expert based his opinion on the fact that the MRI or the trauma of the accident were both likely causes of the resulting fetal demise. But other than his own clinical experience and “gut sense,” there was little, if any, broad scientific or medical support for his opinions. While he did qualify as an expert, capable of offering expert testimony at trial, his opinions did not pass muster under the strict requirements of Daubert and Lanigan.
According to the language of the decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Daubert case, for an expert opinion to be regarded as reasonably reliable, it should: (1) be based on a theory or technique that has been subject to scientific testing; (2) be an opinion that has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) be an opinion that accepted test results generally confirm; and (4) be an opinion that is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. But how should such a standard be applied to cases involving relatively new product technologies that result in a serious injury? Take, for example, a case where a man undergoes treatment for laser vision correction, and the laser – a technology only recently approved for such use – results in the patient’s permanent loss of correctable vision. The likelihood that the patient’s product liability lawyer would be capable of meeting the standard under the Daubert and Lanigan cases by providing published articles or other peer review summaries, where no similar prior incident had yet been reported, is slim. This could, in fact, create an insurmountable hurdle for the plaintiff, and effectively serve as a bar to compensation.
There is no dispute that “junk science” has no place in the courtroom. Unfortunately, the standards put in place by the Commonwealth’s highest court provide large corporations that design and manufacture defective products with yet another mechanism for denying justice to innocent victims.
Trust One of the Top Product Liability Law Firms in Boston, MA To Provide Legal Representation
If you have suffered an injury due to a defective or dangerous product, please contact us for a free, confidential case review and receive a response within hours after filling out this form. You can also call our office to speak with an attorney at law at (617) 886-0500.
Our lawyers have decades of experience providing legal help to consumers who have been injured by defective products. Some of our firm’s other personal injury practice areas include car accidents, motorcycle accidents, wrongful death, premises liability, medical malpractice, and dog bites.