USA Law and Practice Contributed by: Trevor Keenan, Michelle Byers Graham and Curtis Berglund, Campbell Conroy & O’Neil, P.C.
include fines or imprisonment for up to 15 years, or both. In November 2024, the NHTSA announced a consent decree with a vehicle manufacturer for fail - ing to comply with federal recall requirements, which included a USD165 million penalty, the second-largest civil penalty in the NHTSA’s history. EPA The EPA can impose civil penalties of up to USD37,500 for violating the TSCA, criminal fines and injunctions. See 15 USC Section 2615. Criminal penalties can include: • fines ranging from USD50,000 per day for individu - als, and up to USD1 million per corporate violation of the TSCA; • restitution; or • incarceration ranging from one to 15 years (15 USC Section 2615). 2. Product Liability 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law Product liability is derived from state rather than fed - eral law. There can be significant differences between the product liability law of individual states. The primary causes of action in product liability cases are negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty. Other legal claims that may be applicable to product liability lawsuits include consumer protection, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Claims can generally be asserted against anyone in the chain of commerce including a manufacturer, seller, distributor or retailer, even if a defendant was unaware of the defect at the time it left its control. Negligence A negligence claim focuses on the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct and whether there was a breach of the duty of care. A defendant owes a duty of reasonable care in its design and manufacturing processes and in its provision of adequate product warnings. The elements of a negligence claim are the following:
• the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; • the defendant breached that duty; • the breach caused the plaintiff’s injury; and • the plaintiff sustained injuries or damages. Strict Liability Strict liability focuses on the product itself and not on the defendant’s intent or level of care. As such, even if a manufacturer is found to have exercised reasonable care, it may still be found liable under strict liability. Strict liability generally requires showing that: • the product was sold in an unreasonably danger - ous condition when it left the possession and control of the manufacturer, seller, distributor or retailer; • the product was materially in the same condition when it reached the plaintiff as it was when it left the defendant’s control; and • the defect caused the plaintiff’s injury. Breach of Warranty Warranty claims may be based on: • express affirmations of fact or promises made to buyers or lessees relating to the product; • descriptions or samples of goods; or • implied warranties of merchantability and for fit - ness for a particular purpose. A breach of express warranty arises when a seller makes an express promise to a purchaser that the product will meet a certain standard and it fails to do so. The promises are often found in sales contracts but may exist when there are assurances or descrip - tions of product quality made to the purchaser. A breach of implied warranty of merchantability occurs when the product is not fit for the purpose for which it is typically used. The plaintiff must usually prove that the defect in the product rendered it unfit for its ordinary and intended use. An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose may arise where: • the seller has reason to know of the particular pur - pose for which the goods are provided;
318 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook