In negligence, the focus is on the defendant's conduct, while in strict liability, the focus is on the defendant's product. The negligence of the defendant or the plaintiff is irrelevant to strict liability. Product liability claims may be based on negligence, strict liability, or breach of the warranty of fitness. This will generally depend on the jurisdiction in which the claim is based, as there is no federal product liability law.
This lack of uniformity has led the United States Department of Commerce to publish the Uniform Model Product Liability Act (MUPLA), which has attempted to promote uniform procedures for civil liability for defective products. In most states, product liability claims are based on strict liability theory. In states where strict liability is not the theory of liability, the theory lies in negligence or breach of the warranty of fitness. Strict responsibility, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily involve any expected level of care.
Instead, it assigns responsibility to an entity whose actions caused harm, even without fault or intent. Let's take the example of liability for defective products. A company that sells defective products that harm customers can be held strictly liable not because it has not exercised a certain level of care, but simply because its actions (selling harmful products) have resulted in harm. Because of the large number of people who may be involved in product liability cases, plaintiffs often seek judges who agree with product liability claims.
In a defective product liability case, any or all of the parties involved in a product's supply chain, including the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer that sold the product to the consumer, may be responsible for injuries suffered by the consumer. In states where strict liability is the theory of liability, manufacturers and sellers are generally responsible for injuries to people caused by the products they manufacture or sell, regardless of their intent or the reasonable care they exercise. As has already been said, strict liability and liability for defective products are, in fact, different legal theories with many overlaps. Product liability is the theory of legal liability according to which the manufacturer or seller of a defective product is held responsible for injuries suffered by a consumer caused by the use of that product.
There are many legal precedents in this area, and understanding the interaction between the two theories should bring clarity to personal injury lawyers who are considering what to assert in a matter with a client. The difference between strict liability and negligence is that strict liability does not require proving that the defendant acted negligently, while negligence does require this element. A defective product liability claim based on injuries caused by a defective consumer item can be based on a wide range of legal theories. Product liability refers to the liability of one or all parties along the manufacturing chain of any product for damage caused by that product.
Strict liability and product liability are fundamental theories of legal liability that personal injury lawyers rely on when seeking justice for clients who have suffered at the hands of third parties. Unlike intentional torts and negligence, the legal theory of strict liability is not based on the intent of the defendant or on the comparison of their actions with what a reasonable person could have done. Since strict liability claims and product liability claims in strict liability jurisdictions are not based on the defendant's intent, intention-based defenses will be of no avail.
