Product defect wrongful death claims arise when defectively designed, manufactured, or marketed consumer goods, medical devices, vehicles, machinery, or pharmaceuticals cause fatal injuries. These cases proceed under strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty theories that hold manufacturers, distributors, and retailers accountable for placing unreasonably dangerous products into commerce. Unlike negligence-based wrongful death claims requiring proof of careless conduct, strict products liability focuses on the product’s condition rather than the defendant’s care level, making recovery possible even when manufacturers exercised reasonable care in design and production.
Types of Product Defects
Design defects exist when products are manufactured according to specifications but the design itself creates unreasonable danger. The entire product line is defective, not just individual units. SUVs prone to rollover due to high centers of gravity, medical devices that fail predictably under normal use, or power tools lacking feasible safety guards demonstrate design defects. Courts apply either the consumer expectation test—whether the product is more dangerous than ordinary consumers expect—or the risk-utility test, weighing design risks against benefits and feasibility of safer alternatives.
Plaintiffs must typically prove a reasonable alternative design (RAD) existed that would have prevented death without substantially impairing the product’s utility or making it prohibitively expensive. Expert testimony establishes that alternative designs were technologically and economically feasible when the product was manufactured. Defendants counter that design changes would compromise functionality, increase costs unreasonably, or create different risks.
Manufacturing defects occur when individual products deviate from design specifications during production. A brake line improperly installed on one vehicle, contamination in a single pharmaceutical batch, or a structural component omitted during assembly creates manufacturing defects. These defects are easier to prove than design defects because the manufacturer’s own specifications establish the proper standard—plaintiffs need only show the specific product departed from intended design and this deviation caused death.
Warning defects (failure to warn or inadequate warnings) involve products that are reasonably safe when properly used but dangerous without adequate instructions or warnings about non-obvious risks. Pharmaceutical side effects, chemical exposure dangers, machinery operation hazards, and vehicle maintenance requirements demand clear warnings enabling users to avoid foreseeable risks. The learned intermediary doctrine in pharmaceutical cases requires warnings to physicians rather than patients, though direct-to-consumer advertising may eliminate this protection.
Establishing Causation in Product Death Cases
Defect identification requires proving the product was defective when it left the defendant’s control and remained substantially unchanged until the fatal incident. Spoliation of evidence becomes critical—destroyed products, discarded packaging, or unavailable warnings prevent proving what existed at the time of death. Immediate preservation of the product, similar exemplar products, and all documentation becomes essential.
Proximate causation demands proof the defect caused death rather than user misuse, alteration, or unrelated factors. When multiple causes contribute—a defective tire and excessive speed, or a dangerous drug combined with alcohol—courts examine whether the defect was a substantial factor in causing death. Comparative fault may reduce recovery when the decedent misused the product, ignored warnings, or modified it in unforeseeable ways.
Alternative cause evidence frequently arises when defendants claim user error, improper maintenance, or third-party modifications caused the failure. Reconstruction experts, engineers, and industry specialists battle over whether the product performed as designed or whether defects caused the malfunction. Electronic data from vehicle event recorders, medical device implant interrogations, or machinery sensors provide objective evidence of product performance immediately before failure.
Defendants in the Chain of Distribution
Manufacturers bear primary liability for design, manufacturing, and warning defects. This includes component part manufacturers whose defective parts integrate into finished products—airbag manufacturers, brake suppliers, or battery producers face direct liability when their components cause deaths in vehicles they didn’t assemble.
Distributors and retailers face strict liability merely for placing defective products in commerce, even without knowledge of defects or opportunity to inspect. The policy rationale holds that sellers can spread risk through pricing and insurance and are better positioned than injured consumers to trace products back to manufacturers. This creates liability even for sealed products that retailers cannot inspect.
Successor corporations that acquire manufacturers through mergers or asset purchases may inherit products liability for defective products manufactured by predecessors. The product line exception to the general rule against successor liability applies when the acquiring company continues producing substantially similar products, holds itself out as continuing the original business, or exclusively benefits from the predecessor’s goodwill.
Defenses and Limitations
Statute of repose bars claims after a specified time from product manufacture or sale—typically 10-12 years—regardless of when injury occurs or is discovered. These absolute time bars differ from statutes of limitations that run from injury or discovery. Long-latency diseases from asbestos, toxic exposures, or defective medical implants may be time-barred despite just recently causing death.
Substantial alteration defends against liability when the product was significantly modified after leaving the manufacturer’s control in ways that caused the defect. Aftermarket modifications, improper repairs, or removal of safety features break the causal chain if alterations rather than original design caused death. However, foreseeable modifications—user adjustments, routine maintenance, or common alterations—do not eliminate liability.
State of the art defense argues that scientific knowledge, technical feasibility, or industry standards at the time of manufacture made safer designs infeasible or unknowable. This defense is stronger for warning defects (risks unknown when manufactured) than design defects, where courts split on whether technological feasibility or scientific knowability at manufacture limits liability.
Unavoidably unsafe products like prescription drugs and vaccines receive special treatment—strict liability does not apply if products are properly manufactured and accompanied by adequate warnings. The comment k exception to strict liability recognizes that some beneficial products carry inherent risks that cannot be designed out. However, pharmaceutical companies still face liability for manufacturing defects, inadequate warnings about known risks, or fraudulently concealing dangers.
High-Risk Product Categories
Motor vehicles generate massive products liability litigation involving crashworthiness defects (injuries enhanced by poor crash protection), manufacturing defects in critical safety systems, electronic defects causing unintended acceleration, and battery fires in electric vehicles. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards create minimum requirements, but compliance doesn’t preclude state tort liability for defective design.
Medical devices and pharmaceuticals cause death through device failures, drug interactions, manufacturing contamination, or side effects inadequately disclosed to physicians. The FDA approval process does not immunize manufacturers from state tort liability except for Class III medical devices where federal preemption may apply under specific circumstances. Off-label pharmaceutical marketing that conceals risks creates liability despite FDA approval for other uses.
Industrial machinery and equipment lacking proper guards, emergency stops, or lockout-tagout systems causes workplace deaths. Manufacturers cannot delegate safety responsibility to employers—even when OSHA regulations require employer-provided safeguards, manufacturers must design reasonably safe products.
Consumer products from space heaters causing fires to defective lithium batteries exploding in electronics, children’s products with choking hazards, and furniture tip-overs demonstrate the breadth of consumer goods generating fatal product defects. The Consumer Product Safety Commission mandates recalls and safety standards, but these regulatory actions don’t preclude tort liability.
Punitive Damages and Enhanced Recovery
Products liability cases permit punitive damages when manufacturers knowingly conceal dangers, suppress safety testing, or prioritize profits over consumer safety. Cost-benefit analyses weighing recall costs against projected death settlements create powerful punitive damage evidence. Internal documents showing management decisions to market dangerous products despite known fatal risks support punitive awards far exceeding compensatory damages.
Fraudulent concealment of testing data, destruction of adverse safety reports, or systematic patterns of ignoring consumer complaints demonstrate the conscious disregard for safety warranting punishment beyond compensating individual victims. These awards serve deterrence functions, changing corporate behavior industry-wide.
Mass Tort and Class Action Considerations
When defective products cause multiple deaths—pharmaceutical side effects, defective medical implants, vehicle design defects affecting entire model lines—cases may consolidate in multidistrict litigation (MDL) or state court coordinated proceedings. Early bellwether trials establish settlement ranges and liability patterns affecting thousands of similar claims. However, wrongful death damages remain highly individualized based on each decedent’s earnings, age, and family circumstances, limiting true class action treatment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can we still sue if the product met all government safety regulations and was FDA approved?
Yes. Regulatory compliance provides evidence of reasonable care but does not automatically shield manufacturers from liability. Federal safety standards typically establish minimum requirements, not ceilings preventing state tort claims for defective design. FDA approval means the agency determined benefits outweigh risks for labeled uses, not that the product is perfectly safe or optimally designed. However, medical device preemption under the Medical Device Amendments may bar state law claims for Class III devices when the claim would impose requirements different from specific FDA approval conditions—this applies narrowly and depends on whether state law claims conflict with federal requirements or merely parallel them. Pharmaceutical preemption is even more limited; manufacturers remain liable for failure to warn about risks they knew or should have known required disclosure.
What if our family member modified or misused the product before the fatal accident?
Liability depends on whether the modification or misuse was reasonably foreseeable and whether the product should have been designed to prevent the misuse or withstand the modification. Manufacturers must anticipate common misuse and design products to be safe despite foreseeable user error. Removing safety guards, using products for unintended purposes the manufacturer should anticipate, or making common modifications may not bar recovery if reasonable alternative designs would have prevented death despite the misuse. However, unforeseeable alterations or extreme misuse may constitute comparative negligence reducing recovery or breaking the causal chain entirely. Courts examine whether warnings adequately explained risks, whether the design invited misuse, and whether safety features could have prevented death despite improper use.
The company that made the defective product went bankrupt years ago—can we still recover?
Recovery depends on several factors. Bankruptcy generally discharges the company’s liabilities, but product liability insurance policies may provide recovery even after bankruptcy. Insurance policies existing when the product was manufactured often remain available to pay claims regardless of the policyholder’s bankruptcy status. Additionally, if another company acquired the bankrupt manufacturer’s product line or assets, successor liability doctrines may apply, making the acquiring company responsible for defective products manufactured by the predecessor. If the product was a component in a larger item, the finished product manufacturer may be jointly liable. Finally, some asbestos and pharmaceutical bankruptcies established trust funds specifically to compensate future claimants—these trusts pay claims according to established protocols even though the original company no longer exists.