Product Liability Cases Where The Product Has Been Destroyed

What happens when a product you purchased malfunctions and causes injury or damage and that product is destroyed or damaged as a result of the malfunction. This week the Connecticut Supreme Court released a decision in such a case.  In Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Deere and Company, the plaintiff claimed that a lawn tractor manufactured by the defendant contained a manufacturing defect in its electrical system that caused a fire resulting in the destruction of the home of the plaintiff’s insureds.

 The plaintiff sought to recover under a strict liability products case. To recover under the doctrine of strict liability in tort, a ‘‘plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant was engaged in the business of selling the product; (2) the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer or user; (3) the defect caused the injury for which compensation was sought; (4) the defect existed at the time of the sale; and (5) the product was expected to and did reach the consumer without substantial change in condition.’’

 Although most product liability cases are based on direct evidence of a specific product defect, there are cases in which such evidence is unavailable. In such cases a plaintiff could prevail under the “malfunction theory.” The malfunction theory of products liability permits the plaintiff to establish a prima facie product liability case on the basis of circumstantial evidence when direct evidence of a defect is unavailable.

 The Connecticut Supreme Court was concerned about removing these cases from the realm of speculation and held that, when direct evidence of a specific defect is unavailable, a jury may rely on circumstantial evidence to infer that a product that malfunctioned was defective at the time it left the manufacturer’s or seller’s control if the plaintiff presents evidence establishing that (1) the incident that caused the plaintiff’s harm was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of a product defect, and (2) any defect most likely existed at the time the product left the manufacturer’s or seller’s control and was not the result of other reasonably possible causes not attributable to the manufacturer or seller.

 The Court continued, a plaintiff may establish these elements through the use of various forms of circumstantial evidence, including evidence of (1) the history and use of the particular product, (2) the manner in which the product malfunctioned, (3) similar malfunctions in similar products that may negate the possibility of other causes, (4) the age of the product in relation to its life expectancy, and (5) the most likely causes of the malfunction.  Further, if lay witnesses and common experience are not sufficient to remove the case from the realm of speculation, the plaintiff will need to present expert testimony to establish its case.