Grizzlylaw | Products Liability
page-template,page-template-template-featuretour,page-template-template-featuretour-php,page,page-id-530,page-child,parent-pageid-85,qode-social-login-1.0.1,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_grid_1300,footer_responsive_adv,qode-content-sidebar-responsive,transparent_content,qode-child-theme-ver-,qode-theme-ver-17.1,qode-theme-bridge,qode_header_in_grid,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.5.5,vc_responsive

Products Liability

Products Liability

Under statute, a manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer who sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous is liable for the physical harm caused by the product.  M.C.A. §27-1-719(1).  A plaintiff, however, is not required to prove the product is both defective and unreasonably dangerous.  McAlpine v. Rhone-Poulenc, 2000 MT 383, 304 Mont. 31, 16P3d 1054.  Instead, a product that is unreasonably dangerous will be considered defective.  As a result, a plaintiff establishes a products liability claim if they prove the product is capable of causing injury to the user beyond that which would be expected by the ordinary user.

A defendant has a limited number of defenses available in a products liability case.  As already pointed out, contributory or comparative negligence is not a defense. A defendant also cannot avoid liability by claiming it exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product M.C.A. §27-1-719(3)(a).  The defendant can seek to reduce or bar a plaintiff’s recovery to the extent plaintiff’s injuries are attributable to her own unreasonable misuse of the product, or her conscious assumption of a known risk.  M.C.A. §27-1-719(5)(a)&(b). However, the Montana State Court has held that reasonably foreseeable misuse is reasonable misuse; thus product misuse, which is foreseeable, does not support a defense to products liability under Montana law.  Lutz v. National Crane Corp., 267 Mont. 368, 884 P.2d 455, 460 (1994).

Next >> Damages

By creating an account you are accepting our Terms & Conditions.