On an almost daily basis, my practice involves sifting through fire debris to find the remnants of products that may have caused the fire. For this reason, the very thought of electronics and their batteries getting even smaller makes me cringe. Now, do not get me wrong, I’m typing this article on my ultra-thin laptop, and checking Twitter on my super-lightweight smartphone (both from the same manufacturer), so I understand the consumer appeal of the ever-changing, ever-shrinking product. But for products liability plaintiffs and defendants, the smaller the product, the harder it is to prove and defend against a product defect claim. This is most often the case in those instances where the product, or its component parts, are no longer identifiable or are completely destroyed by a fire.
While “malfunction theory,” the products liability doctrine that allows a plaintiff to use evidence of a malfunction to prove a defect, has been around for close to 25 years, its significance to products liability actions continues to grow as we continue to super-shrink just about everything we use. As such, it is appropriate that we re-examine the doctrine here.
Malfunction Theory in Pennsylvania
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
