When a person is injured by a product, whether it might be inherently dangerous or not, the same questions always arise. How did the product injure the person? How severely was the person injured? Could the injury have been predicted? How did the product cause the injury? Was there an issue with the product that could have caused the injury?
The biggest difference between manufacturing defects and design defects is that manufacturing defects were not intended, while design defects were intended. For example, a table was constructed, but it fell apart because one of the legs was not installed properly. This is a manufacturing defect. A design defect is when a table is designed to have just three legs. Because the table would tip over easily, it is a defect from the design.
Courts impose liability on manufacturers in hopes that they will put more of an emphasis and investment on product safety. This is in lieu of a fault-based liability system. Manufacturers are held liable for manufacturing defects that injure people even if they did their best to build the product and keep it as safe as possible.
The plaintiff is required to show the burden of proof in a manufacturing defect case that the product caused an injury due to a fault or a defect of the product. In most circumstances, the defect is caused by the negligence of the manufacturer, but it can be almost impossible for the plaintiff to prove this in court.
In most courts, a product is deemed defectively designed because it is unreasonably dangerous to the design. These products are defined differently. Some are unreasonably dangerous because they are more dangerous than a consumer would expect or because the risks of using a product are so great that a reasonable seller will not put the product on the market for sale. Another definition is when the design of a product has risks that far outweigh the benefits.
Visit our page to learn more about design and manufacturing defects and your rights in these cases.