Products Liability & Mass Torts

Protecting Employees from Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation

Consumers should be able to use medications, medical devices, vehicles, appliances, tools, household goods, industrial equipment, and other products without suffering preventable harm.

​

When a product is defectively designed, improperly manufactured, contaminated, inadequately tested, or sold without sufficient warnings, the resulting injuries can be severe. A defective product may injure one person, or the same dangerous design, substance, medication, or corporate practice may harm thousands of people across the country.

The Westmoreland Law Firm represents individuals and families in products-liability and mass-tort litigation involving:

• Dangerous prescription and over-the-counter medications

• Defective medical devices and implants

• Contaminated consumer products

• Defective vehicles and automotive components

• Unsafe industrial and workplace equipment

• Household appliances and electronics

• Children’s products and toys

• Defective safety equipment

• Toxic chemicals and environmental exposure

• Defective construction products

• Fires, explosions, and electrical injuries

• Failure-to-warn claims

• Product recalls

• Catastrophic injuries

• Wrongful death

These cases often involve sophisticated corporations, complex scientific evidence, extensive electronic records, and defendants with substantial legal and financial resources. A prompt and independent investigation is essential.

WHAT IS PRODUCTS LIABILITY?

Products liability refers to legal claims arising when a defective or unreasonably dangerous product causes injury, illness, death, or property damage. Potentially responsible parties may include:

• Product manufacturers

• Component-part manufacturers

• Pharmaceutical companies

• Medical-device manufacturers

• Designers

• Distributors

• Wholesalers

• Retailers

• Importers

• Suppliers

• Testing laboratories

• Contractors

• Repair companies

• Rental companies

• Other businesses within the product’s chain of distribution

Depending on the facts, a claim may be based on strict products liability, negligence, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation, unfair competition, or another legally recognized theory.

A claimant does not necessarily need a direct contract with the manufacturer to pursue a products-liability claim.

​

TYPES OF PRODUCT DEFECTS

Products-liability claims generally fall into three principal categories:

• Manufacturing defects

• Design defects

• Warning or instruction defects

A single product may contain more than one type of defect.

​

MANUFACTURING DEFECTS

A manufacturing defect may exist when a particular product differs from the manufacturer’s intended design or from other units in the same product line. The product may have been safely designed but improperly assembled, contaminated, damaged, or manufactured outside required specifications. Examples may include:

• A medication contaminated during production

• A medical implant containing a defective component

• A tire with improper bonding

• A seatbelt assembled incorrectly

• A power tool with faulty internal wiring

• A bottle containing the wrong substance or dosage

• A child-safety seat missing a required component

• A structural part made from inferior material

• A product damaged during packaging or assembly

• A batch produced outside required temperature or sanitation controls

• A sterilized medical product that was not properly sterilized

• A battery containing an internal manufacturing flaw

Relevant evidence may include the product itself, lot numbers, serial numbers, manufacturing records, quality-control data, inspection records, testing results, recall notices, and evidence concerning similar failures. The product should not be discarded, repaired, altered, returned, or surrendered without first considering the need to preserve it as evidence.

​​

DESIGN DEFECTS

A design defect may exist when a product was manufactured as intended but the intended design itself creates an unreasonable danger. Potential design-defect cases may involve:

• Vehicles that are prone to rollover

• Defective airbags

• Weak roofs or vehicle structures

• Unsafe fuel-system placement

• Machinery lacking necessary guards

• Power tools without adequate shutoff mechanisms

• Medical devices with excessive failure rates

• Implants that release harmful materials

• Products that overheat or ignite

• Furniture that tips over

• Unsafe child restraints

• Toys containing choking or strangulation hazards

• Products that expose users to toxic substances

• Consumer products lacking reasonably available safety features

Design-defect litigation may examine:

• The product’s intended and reasonably foreseeable uses

• The nature and severity of the danger

• The likelihood of injury

• The product’s safety performance

• The feasibility of a safer alternative design

• The cost and practicality of additional safeguards

• Whether a safety feature would have reduced or prevented the injury

• The manufacturer’s testing and risk analysis

• The product’s usefulness

• Industry knowledge available when the product was designed and sold

A product does not become reasonably safe merely because it complied with minimum industry practices or government standards. Compliance may be relevant, but it does not necessarily resolve liability.

​​

FAILURE TO WARN OR PROVIDE ADEQUATE INSTRUCTIONS

A product may be defective when foreseeable risks were not accompanied by adequate warnings or instructions. A warning should reasonably communicate the nature and seriousness of the danger and provide information necessary for safe use. Potential warning defects include:

• Failing to disclose a known risk

• Minimizing the seriousness of a danger

• Hiding critical warnings within lengthy materials

• Providing warnings that are vague or difficult to understand

• Failing to warn against foreseeable misuse

• Failing to provide proper assembly instructions

• Failing to identify contraindications or dangerous interactions

• Failing to update warnings after learning of new risks

• Failing to communicate warnings to physicians, distributors, employers, or consumers

• Omitting necessary maintenance or inspection instructions

• Failing to warn that a safety feature may fail

• Using labels that are inconsistent with advertising or sales representations

Warnings do not automatically excuse a defective design. A manufacturer may not necessarily avoid responsibility for a dangerous product merely by placing a warning on it when a reasonable safety feature could have reduced the risk.

​

NEGLIGENCE BY A MANUFACTURER OR SELLER

A company may be negligent when it fails to use reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, testing, inspecting, labeling, marketing, distributing, monitoring, recalling, or repairing a product. Potential negligence may include:

• Inadequate premarket testing

• Ignoring unfavorable safety data

• Using inferior materials

• Failing to comply with manufacturing specifications

• Inadequate quality-control procedures

• Failing to investigate adverse-event reports

• Continuing to sell a product after learning of serious risks

• Failing to conduct a timely recall

• Concealing safety problems from regulators or consumers

• Failing to warn physicians or users

• Misrepresenting product safety

• Failing to train distributors or installers

• Negligent repair or maintenance

• Failing to preserve safety records

• Prioritizing sales over consumer safety

Internal communications may show that a company recognized a risk but delayed corrective action because of cost, sales, market share, or reputational concerns.

​​

BREACH OF WARRANTY

A product claim may also arise from an express or implied warranty.

​

Express Warranties

An express warranty may arise from specific factual promises or representations concerning a product, including statements about:

• Safety

• Performance

• Durability

• Ingredients

• Effectiveness

• Compatibility

• Quality

• Testing

• Regulatory approval

• Fitness for a particular use

General advertising or sales language does not always create an enforceable warranty. The exact statement, context, speaker, buyer’s reliance, and governing law must be examined.

Implied Warranties

Depending on the transaction and product, the law may imply that a product is:

• Fit for its ordinary purpose

• Of fair and merchantable quality

• Properly packaged and labeled

• Suitable for a particular purpose known to the seller

Warranty claims may be affected by disclaimers, notice requirements, contractual limitations, the type of damages sought, and the relationship between the parties.

​​

DANGEROUS MEDICATIONS

Prescription and over-the-counter medications may cause serious harm when a manufacturer fails to adequately test, manufacture, label, monitor, or warn about a drug. Potential claims may involve:

• Undisclosed side effects

• Inadequate clinical testing

• Contamination

• Incorrect dosage or formulation

• Dangerous drug interactions

• Failure to warn about risks to particular patient groups

• Failure to update safety information

• Misleading marketing to physicians or consumers

• Promotion for unsafe or unsupported uses

• Concealment of adverse-event information

• Failure to conduct required post-market studies

• Manufacturing impurities

• Withdrawal or recall after widespread use

Drug cases frequently require analysis of:

• Medical records

• Prescription history

• Pharmacy records

• Dosage and duration of use

• The condition being treated

• Competing medical causes

• Scientific studies

• Regulatory submissions

• Warning-label history

• Adverse-event reports

• Communications with physicians

• Marketing practices

• The date the risk became known

The occurrence of a listed side effect does not automatically establish liability. The adequacy of the warning, the state of scientific knowledge, causation, and the manufacturer’s conduct must be evaluated.

​​

DEFECTIVE MEDICAL DEVICES

Medical devices may include:

• Artificial joints

• Pacemakers

• Defibrillators

• Surgical mesh

• Intrauterine devices

• Insulin pumps

• Catheters

• Filters

• Surgical instruments

• Spinal implants

• Breast implants

• Diagnostic equipment

• Hearing devices

• Prosthetics

• Robotic surgical systems

Potential defects may involve:

• Premature failure

• Breakage

• Migration

• Corrosion

• Metal or chemical release

• Infection risk

• Improper deployment

• Inaccurate monitoring

• Battery failure

• Software defects

• Inadequate sterilization

• Incompatible materials

• Difficult or dangerous removal

• Inadequate physician instructions

• Failure to warn about revision procedures

A device recall does not automatically establish liability, and the absence of a recall does not necessarily establish that the device was safe. Patients should preserve device-identification cards, implant records, operative reports, imaging, pathology, explant information, and any removed device or component when available.

​​

VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE DEFECTS

Vehicle manufacturers and component suppliers may be responsible when a defect causes a collision or makes injuries more severe than they otherwise would have been. Potential automotive defects include:

• Defective brakes

• Steering failures

• Tire defects

• Seatbelt failures

• Airbag defects

• Roof crush

• Door-latch failures

• Defective seats or seatbacks

• Fuel-system defects

• Battery fires

• Unintended acceleration

• Electronic-control failures

• Defective autonomous or driver-assistance systems

• Visibility defects

• Transmission failures

• Defective child-seat anchoring systems

• Vehicle instability and rollover risk

A crashworthiness claim may arise when a vehicle defect did not cause the initial collision but increased the severity of the occupant’s injuries. The vehicle and its electronic data should be preserved before repair, sale, salvage, or destruction.

​

FIRES, EXPLOSIONS, AND BATTERY FAILURES

Defective products may cause fires or explosions involving:

• Lithium-ion batteries

• Electric vehicles

• E-bikes and scooters

• Chargers

• Power tools

• Appliances

• Space heaters

• Propane tanks

• Gas lines and valves

• Electrical panels

• Extension cords

• Consumer electronics

• Industrial machinery

• Fuel containers

• Aerosol products

Potential defects may include:

• Thermal runaway

• Internal short circuits

• Inadequate ventilation

• Improper charging controls

• Flammable materials

• Defective wiring

• Inadequate insulation

• Weak pressure containers

• Failure to provide a shutoff mechanism

• Inadequate warnings

• Manufacturing contamination

• Failure to protect against foreseeable overcharging or overheating

Fire-scene evidence may be disturbed or removed quickly. The product, batteries, chargers, wiring, packaging, receipts, photographs, surveillance footage, and fire-investigation records should be preserved.

CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS AND TOYS

Children may be especially vulnerable to defective products because of their size, developmental stage, and foreseeable use of products in ways adults may not. Dangerous children’s products may include:

• Toys with choking hazards

• Defective cribs

• Unsafe bassinets

• Child restraints

• Strollers

• High chairs

• Furniture that tips over

• Clothing with strangulation hazards

• Products containing toxic materials

• Magnets

• Button batteries

• Defective playground equipment

• Flammable products

• Products with sharp edges

• Age-inappropriate designs

• Inadequate warnings to parents

A manufacturer should consider reasonably foreseeable conduct by children rather than assuming the product will always be used precisely as an adult would use it.

​​

INDUSTRIAL AND WORKPLACE PRODUCTS

Workers may be injured by defective machinery, tools, safety equipment, chemicals, or other products used on the job.

Potentially dangerous products include:

• Forklifts

• Presses

• Saws

• Conveyors

• Ladders

• Scaffolding components

• Cranes

• Welding equipment

• Respirators

• Protective clothing

• Harnesses

• Electrical equipment

• Agricultural machinery

• Construction tools

• Chemical products

• Industrial vehicles

Workers’ compensation may cover certain employment-related injuries, but a separate products-liability claim may be available against a manufacturer, distributor, rental company, maintenance provider, or other responsible third party. A workers’ compensation claim and a third-party products-liability claim may proceed under different rules and provide different categories of recovery.

​​

TOXIC EXPOSURE

Toxic-tort claims may arise when a person is exposed to a harmful chemical, contaminant, pollutant, or hazardous substance. Potential exposures may involve:

• Asbestos

• Silica

• Benzene

• Lead

• Pesticides

• Solvents

• Industrial chemicals

• Contaminated water

• Contaminated soil

• Toxic consumer products

• PFAS and other persistent chemicals

• Mold or biological contaminants

• Chemical releases

• Occupational exposure

• Defective protective equipment

• Contaminated medications or cosmetics

Toxic-exposure cases can be difficult because illness may develop years after the exposure. The investigation may require:

• Employment records

• Product-identification evidence

• Property and environmental records

• Medical history

• Exposure duration and concentration

• Scientific studies

• Industrial-hygiene evidence

• Air, water, or soil testing

• Regulatory records

• Corporate knowledge

• Alternative-causation analysis

• Expert testimony

The timing of exposure, diagnosis, disability, discovery of the cause, and wrongful conduct may affect the filing deadline.

WHAT IS A MASS TORT?

A mass tort generally involves injuries to many people caused by the same product, substance, event, or pattern of corporate misconduct. Examples may include:

• A medication associated with a serious injury

• A defective medical device used in many patients

• A contaminated consumer product

• Widespread exposure to a toxic chemical

• A defective vehicle component

• A large industrial release

• A dangerous product sold nationwide

• A fire, explosion, or disaster affecting many people

Mass-tort plaintiffs may have common allegations concerning the product and defendant, but each injured person ordinarily maintains an individual claim.

​

Individual issues may include:

• The product used

• Length and level of exposure

• Medical history

• Injury or diagnosis

• Causation

• Treatment

• Lost income

• Pain and suffering

• Future medical needs

• The applicable state law

• Filing deadlines

Mass-tort litigation is therefore different from a case in which every claimant automatically receives the same recovery.

​

MASS TORTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY CLASS ACTIONS

Mass torts and class actions are not the same. In a class action, one or more representatives pursue claims for a defined group whose claims share legally sufficient common issues. The court must generally certify the class before the case may proceed on behalf of the group.

In mass-tort litigation, each plaintiff usually files or maintains an individual claim. The cases may be coordinated for efficiency, but each person must generally establish individual injury, causation, and damages.

Coordination may address common issues such as:

• Product design

• Corporate knowledge

• Warning history

• Regulatory conduct

• Scientific evidence

• General causation

• Document discovery

• Expert testimony

Individual issues remain important even after cases are coordinated.

​​

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

When related federal civil actions are pending in different federal districts and involve one or more common factual questions, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation may transfer the cases to one federal district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. This process is commonly called multidistrict litigation, or an MDL.

An MDL may coordinate:

• Written discovery

• Corporate document production

• Depositions

• Expert discovery

• Motions concerning common issues

• Case-management procedures

• Settlement discussions

• Selection of representative cases for trial

Cases that are not resolved in the MDL may ultimately be returned to their original federal districts for trial, subject to the applicable procedures. An MDL is not automatically a settlement program. Filing a claim does not guarantee compensation.

COORDINATED STATE-COURT PROCEEDINGS

Related products-liability cases may also be coordinated or consolidated in state court.

Coordination can reduce:

• Duplicative discovery

• Conflicting rulings

• Repeated depositions

• Unnecessary litigation expense

Even when common pretrial matters are coordinated, each plaintiff’s medical history, exposure, injury, causation, and damages may require individual proof. The forum and procedure may affect applicable law, discovery, deadlines, trial location, and settlement strategy.

​

BELLWETHER TRIALS

Courts overseeing mass-tort proceedings may select certain cases for early trial.

These cases are sometimes called bellwether cases.

Bellwether trials may help the parties evaluate:

• How juries respond to the evidence

• The strengths and weaknesses of common claims

• Causation issues

• Expert testimony

• Potential damages

• Settlement possibilities

A bellwether verdict does not necessarily determine the outcome or value of every other case. Each claimant’s facts remain important.

​

PRODUCT RECALLS

Government agencies or manufacturers may announce product recalls when a safety problem is identified. A recall may be relevant evidence, but it does not automatically establish:

• That the product was defective when sold

• That the defect caused a particular injury

• That every product in the line contained the same problem

• That the manufacturer is legally liable

• That a person has a valid claim

Likewise, the absence of a recall does not necessarily establish that the product was safe. Consumers should preserve:

• Recall notices

• Product packaging

• Serial or lot numbers

• Purchase records

• Communications from the manufacturer

• Repair or replacement offers

• Photographs

• The product itself

The product should not be returned or destroyed before its evidentiary value is evaluated.

​​

REGULATORY APPROVAL DOES NOT ALWAYS END THE INQUIRY

Products may be regulated by agencies such as:

• The United States Food and Drug Administration

• The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

• The Consumer Product Safety Commission

• The Environmental Protection Agency

• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration

• State regulatory agencies

Regulatory approval, clearance, labeling, or compliance may affect a claim, but it does not necessarily establish that the product was reasonably safe or that all civil claims are barred.

Some claims may be restricted or preempted by federal law depending on:

• The product

• The regulatory process

• The particular claim

• The manufacturer’s conduct

• The warning or design at issue

• The relationship between federal and state requirements

Preemption is a complex, product-specific issue and should not be assumed merely because a government agency reviewed the product.

​​

WHAT MUST A PLAINTIFF PROVE?

The required proof depends on the legal theory. A products-liability plaintiff may need to establish:

• The defendant manufactured, distributed, supplied, sold, or controlled the product

• The product contained a manufacturing, design, or warning defect

• The defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control

• The product was used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner

• The defect was a substantial factor in causing injury

• The plaintiff sustained legally recoverable damages

Negligence and warranty claims may require additional or different proof. In a toxic-tort, medication, or medical-device case, the plaintiff may also need to establish:

• General causation: whether the product or exposure is capable of causing the condition; and

• Specific causation: whether it caused or contributed to the particular plaintiff’s condition.

These issues frequently require qualified expert testimony.

​​

PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION

A claimant must generally connect the injury to a product associated with a legally responsible defendant. Helpful product-identification evidence may include:

• Receipts

• Packaging

• Labels

• Lot or serial numbers

• Pharmacy records

• Medical-device identification cards

• Operative reports

• Photographs

• Owner’s manuals

• Online order history

• Credit-card statements

• Warranty registrations

• Employment purchase records

• Distributor records

• Witness testimony

• Product remnants

• Maintenance records

Product-identification problems may arise when:

• The product was discarded

• The packaging was removed

• Several manufacturers sold similar products

• Exposure occurred over many years

• Medical records do not identify the device

• The claimant used a generic medication

• A workplace purchased products in bulk

Prompt investigation can determine whether substitute records or witnesses can identify the product.

​

FAILURE TO RECALL OR WARN AFTER SALE

A manufacturer may obtain safety information after a product enters the market. Post-sale conduct may include:

• Monitoring complaints

• Reviewing adverse-event reports

• Updating warnings

• Notifying users or physicians

• Issuing safety instructions

• Repairing or replacing products

• Conducting a recall

• Reporting risks to regulators

• Investigating similar incidents

Potential liability may arise when a company learns of a serious danger but fails to take reasonable corrective action.

The existence and scope of a post-sale duty depend on the product, knowledge, feasibility of notice, severity of the risk, applicable law, and surrounding circumstances.

​​

DEFENSES COMMONLY RAISED

Manufacturers and sellers may argue that:

• The product was not defective

• The product was altered after sale

• The plaintiff misused the product

• The use was unforeseeable

• The plaintiff ignored an adequate warning

• Another product caused the injury

• The injury resulted from an underlying condition

• The product cannot scientifically cause the alleged injury

• The product complied with regulatory requirements

• Federal law preempts the claim

• The plaintiff cannot identify the manufacturer

• The claim was filed too late

• A sophisticated user already knew the risk

• An employer, physician, installer, or other third party caused the injury

• The plaintiff assumed a known risk

• The defendant was outside the chain of distribution

These defenses should be evaluated against the physical evidence, scientific literature, corporate records, warning history, product design, regulatory materials, and facts of the particular injury.

​​

COMPARATIVE RESPONSIBILITY

California generally applies comparative-fault principles. A manufacturer may attempt to shift responsibility to:

• The injured consumer

• An employer

• A physician

• A hospital

• An installer

• A repair company

• Another manufacturer

• A distributor

• A property owner

• Another product

An injured person may still recover even when another person or entity shares some responsibility. The effect of comparative fault depends on the claims and allocation of responsibility. In personal-injury and wrongful-death actions based on comparative fault, each defendant is generally responsible only for its proportionate share of noneconomic damages. ​

WHAT COMPENSATION MAY BE AVAILABLE?

The available recovery depends on the product, legal claims, injury, evidence, defendants, and applicable law. Potential economic damages may include:

• Emergency medical expenses

• Hospitalization

• Surgery

• Medication

• Rehabilitation

• Physical therapy

• Occupational therapy

• Future medical treatment

• Medical-device removal or revision

• In-home assistance

• Assistive equipment

• Lost wages

• Loss of employment benefits

• Reduced earning capacity

• Property damage

• Funeral and burial expenses

• Other reasonable financial losses

Potential noneconomic damages may include:

• Physical pain

• Mental suffering

• Emotional distress

• Disability

• Disfigurement

• Scarring

• Loss of enjoyment of life

• Inconvenience

• Loss of independence

• Loss of consortium

• Wrongful-death losses

Punitive damages may be available when clear and convincing evidence establishes oppression, fraud, or malice and the requirements for imposing liability on a corporate employer are satisfied. citeturn968335search14

WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL CLAIMS

When a defective product causes death, eligible family members may have a wrongful-death claim for their own losses. The decedent’s personal representative or qualifying successor in interest may also be able to pursue a survival action for claims that belonged to the decedent before death. Potential cases may involve:

• Defective medications

• Medical-device failures

• Vehicle defects

• Fires or explosions

• Toxic exposure

• Unsafe machinery

• Defective household products

• Children’s products

• Contaminated products

The proper claimants, estate procedures, causation evidence, product identification, and filing deadlines should be evaluated promptly.

​​

WHAT EVIDENCE SHOULD BE PRESERVED?

Products-liability cases frequently depend on evidence that can be lost quickly. Preserve, when available:

• The product

• All product components

• Packaging

• Labels

• Instructions

• Warning materials

• Receipts

• Order confirmations

• Serial, model, and lot numbers

• Warranty documents

• Photographs and videos

• Medical records

• Pharmacy records

• Device-identification cards

• Operative reports

• Recall notices

• Repair records

• Maintenance records

• Communications with the manufacturer or seller

• Insurance communications

• Witness information

• Employment and income records

• The scene of the incident

• Fire, police, or regulatory reports

The product should not be:

• Discarded

• Repaired

• Disassembled

• Tested destructively

• Returned to the seller

• Surrendered to an insurer

• Altered

• Used again

Any inspection should be documented and conducted in a manner that preserves the product for all parties.

​

WHAT SHOULD AN INJURED PERSON DO?

When circumstances permit:

• Obtain appropriate medical treatment

• Tell medical providers what product was involved

• Preserve the product and packaging

• Photograph the product and scene

• Record model, lot, and serial numbers

• Preserve purchase and warranty records

• Identify witnesses

• Save all communications with the manufacturer or seller

• Retain recall and safety notices

• Avoid posting detailed statements online

• Avoid signing a release without understanding its effect

• Do not return the product before considering evidence preservation

• Do not permit destructive testing without appropriate safeguards

A person should not continue using a product suspected of presenting an immediate safety danger.

​

HOW LONG DOES A PERSON HAVE TO FILE?

Products-liability claims are governed by strict deadlines. California generally provides a two-year limitations period for personal-injury and wrongful-death actions caused by another’s wrongful act or neglect.  Different rules may apply to:

• Toxic exposure

• Asbestos exposure

• Latent injuries

• Medical malpractice

• Warranty claims

• Property damage

• Claims involving minors

• Government defendants

• Foreign manufacturers

• Bankruptcy proceedings

• Claims subject to federal law

For injury or illness based on exposure to a hazardous material or toxic substance, California generally measures the deadline from the later of the injury or the plaintiff’s actual or reasonable awareness of the injury, its physical cause, and facts indicating wrongful causation. Toxic-exposure wrongful-death claims have a related discovery-based rule.  Asbestos claims are governed by a separate statute that generally measures the limitations period from disability and discovery, or from death and discovery in wrongful-death actions.  A recall investigation, regulatory proceeding, settlement program, scientific study, or discussion with a manufacturer does not necessarily extend the filing deadline.

​​

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Does a product recall mean I automatically have a case?

No. A claimant must still establish product identification, defect, causation, injury, and damages. A recall may nevertheless provide important evidence concerning the product and known safety issue.

Can I bring a claim if my product was not included in a recall?

Potentially. A recall may cover only specified models, lots, dates, or defects. A product can be defective even if no recall was issued.

Do I need to still have the product?

Possessing the product can be extremely important, but its absence does not automatically prevent every claim. Photographs, receipts, medical records, packaging, serial numbers, witnesses, and other evidence may help identify the product and defect.

Can I return the defective product to the store?

Returning the product may result in the loss or destruction of critical evidence. The product should generally be preserved until its evidentiary value is evaluated.

​

Can a retailer be responsible even though it did not manufacture the product?

Potentially. Manufacturers, distributors, retailers, suppliers, importers, and other entities within the chain of distribution may be proper defendants depending on the claims and applicable law.

​

What if I used the product differently from the instructions?

A claim may still exist when the use was reasonably foreseeable. The nature of the alleged misuse, adequacy of the warnings, product design, and role of the conduct in causing the injury must be evaluated.

​

What if the manufacturer blames my medical condition?

Preexisting conditions do not automatically eliminate a claim. A defendant may be responsible for causing a new condition or aggravating an existing one. Medical causation must be evaluated carefully.

​

What if the product complied with government standards?

Compliance may be relevant but does not necessarily establish that the product was reasonably safe. Some claims may nevertheless be limited or preempted depending on the product and regulatory scheme.

​

Is a mass tort the same as a class action?

No. In most mass torts, each claimant maintains an individual case and must establish individual injury, causation, and damages.

Will my case automatically be transferred into an MDL?

No. Transfer depends on whether an MDL exists, the claims asserted, the court where the action is filed, and orders of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Does joining an MDL guarantee a settlement?

No. An MDL coordinates common pretrial proceedings. It does not guarantee compensation, settlement, or a particular result.

​

Are all claimants paid the same amount?

No. Recovery may depend on injury severity, diagnosis, product use, exposure, causation evidence, treatment, lost income, future harm, applicable law, and other individual circumstances.

What is a bellwether case?

A bellwether case is an individual case selected for an early trial to test common issues and provide information about how juries may evaluate the evidence. Its result does not automatically determine every other case.

Can I bring a claim against a foreign manufacturer?

Potentially. Jurisdiction, service, distribution channels, importers, domestic subsidiaries, and enforceability of a judgment must be evaluated.

​

Can a worker sue a product manufacturer after an on-the-job injury?

Potentially. Workers’ compensation may apply to the employment injury, while a separate third-party claim may exist against a manufacturer, distributor, rental company, repair provider, or another responsible entity.

​

Can family members bring claims when a defective product causes death?

Potentially. Eligible heirs may pursue wrongful-death claims, and the estate or successor in interest may pursue survival claims when the legal requirements are satisfied.​

HOW THE WESTMORELAND LAW FIRM CAN HELP

Products-liability and mass-tort cases require prompt evidence preservation, scientific analysis, corporate discovery, and detailed proof of causation and damages.

​

The Westmoreland Law Firm can:

• Investigate the product and incident

• Identify manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and suppliers

• Preserve the product and related physical evidence

• Obtain purchase, pharmacy, medical, and device records

• Identify model, lot, and serial numbers

• Investigate recalls and regulatory history

• Analyze manufacturing, design, and warning defects

• Review product testing and quality-control evidence

• Investigate similar incidents and adverse-event reports

• Preserve corporate and electronic evidence

• Evaluate medical and scientific causation

• Coordinate inspection and testing of the product

• Work with qualified medical, engineering, scientific, toxicology, regulatory, economic, and other experts

• Analyze federal preemption and jurisdictional issues

• Evaluate individual, coordinated, and multidistrict litigation options

• Pursue wrongful-death and survival claims

• Calculate economic and noneconomic damages

• Challenge attempts to shift responsibility to consumers, physicians, employers, or other parties

• Seek compensatory and punitive damages when legally supported

• Prepare the case for negotiation, mediation, coordinated proceedings, or trial

Our approach focuses on both the individual harm and the broader corporate conduct that allowed the dangerous product to reach consumers.

​

This page provides general information concerning federal and California law and is not legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. Product-defect standards, scientific causation, federal preemption, filing deadlines, available defendants, coordination procedures, and recoverable damages depend on the product and specific facts of each matter.