Personal Injury Newsletter

  • Drivers & Their Duty to Passengers
    If you are injured in a traffic collision while riding as a passenger in a vehicle, you may want to know about the driver’s liability toward you. The driver does have a duty to act responsibly toward you, but the extent of that... Read more.
  • Franchisors Might be Liable for Franchisee Actions
    An increasing array of goods and services are offered through “franchises.” Franchising is not a new concept, but it has exploded in popularity; according to statistics compiled by Price Waterhouse Coopers in 2005 (the... Read more.
  • Employer Liability Under Respondeat Superior
    In general, people are not liable for the actions of others. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. One long-standing exception is the doctrine of “respondeat superior,” a Latin term meaning “let the master... Read more.
  • Award of Back Wages Taxed the Year Wages Are Actually Paid
    The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that awards of back wages to employees are subject to federal taxation according to the year in which the wages are actually paid, not the year in which the wages should have been paid or were actually... Read more.
Personal Injury News Links

Product Defect and the Circumstantial Evidence Standard

Individuals who have been injured by a defective product will have a valid legal claim against the manufacturer or distributor of the product if they can prove that the product was defective and that the product defect caused their injury. Traditionally, courts have required the injured party in a product liability case to prove their case with direct evidence, by testifying as to how the product injured them and having an expert testify that a defect in the product caused their injury. However, courts in some states have recognized that the injured party in a product liability case may sometimes use circumstantial evidence when they are unable to identify a specific defect in the product at issue.

The Circumstantial Evidence Standard

When injured parties in product liability cases are unable to identify a specific product defect through either their own testimony or expert testimony, some courts allow them to use circumstantial evidence. Specifically, if the sequence of circumstances leading up to their injury point to a product defect, some courts will assume that a defect must have existed and that the injury would not have otherwise occurred. In other words, some incidents are so out of the ordinary that courts will assume that the product must have been defective, even if the injured party cannot directly prove that a specific defect existed.

For example, consider a case where the injured party claims that a new television caused a fire. The fire destroyed the television, so the injured party is unable to identify a specific defect in the television. In states that only allow direct evidence to prove product defect, this injured party would not have a successful product liability claim. However, in states that allow the injured party to use circumstantial evidence to prove product defect, the injured party in this case could show that the television was new and had no problems prior to the fire; that the heaviest burn pattern occurred where the television was located; and that at least one witness is able to exclude all other possible causes of the fire other than the television.

New Products vs. Used Products

Initially, courts that accepted circumstantial evidence in product liability cases limited the admissibility of such evidence to cases where the products at issue were new. However, courts have gradually begun to allow the use of circumstantial evidence to prove defects in new and used products, as long as the product was in substantially the same condition at the time of injury as when it was delivered to the purchaser.

Still, not all courts recognize circumstantial evidence in product liability cases, and the requirements for use of circumstantial evidence in courts that do recognize it vary from state to state. Further, while courts that allow circumstantial evidence to prove a product defect do not always require expert testimony of the defect, there has been a strong preference in favor of expert testimony to eliminate all other possible causes of injury other than the alleged defect.

Share This Page: