USA – NEW JERSEY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Mark Silver, Thomas Cotton, Joseph Amoroso and Timothy Duffy, Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP
Conclusion The New Jersey Products Liability Act continues to generate significant and consequential litiga - tion across a wide range of product categories. The five decisions examined here reflect several dura - ble themes in its interpretation. Courts consistently enforce the statute’s exclusivity as the sole vehicle for product liability claims sounding in personal inju - ry, turning aside attempts to plead around it through implied warranty or negligence theories. The consum - er expectations defence in Section 3 (a)(2) remains a potent tool for manufacturers, particularly where the product’s alleged risk stems from an inherent charac - teristic known to ordinary users ‒ as Berkoski confirms even in the context of modern automotive technology. The statute’s scope of covered defendants is enforced rigorously, as the MDL ruling illustrates: no matter how closely a trade association is linked to a product’s risks, only manufacturers and sellers fall within the NJPLA’s liability framework. In the medical device space, Hrymoc has clarified that the NJPLA’s punitive damages exemption for FDA-approved products does not extend to devices cleared only through the 510 (k) process, a ruling with substantial implications for New Jersey-based device litigation. And in the MDL and appellate talcum pow - der cases, courts have confirmed that NJPLA claims require rigorous expert testimony and proper trial management, with significant penalties ‒ both proce - dural and substantive ‒ for discovery misconduct. As New Jersey’s courts continue to develop these principles, practitioners on both sides of the dock - et should remain attentive to the statute’s evolv - ing boundaries. The NJPLA’s blend of strict liability, affirmative defences, and regulatory interplay makes it one of the most dynamic products liability frameworks in the country.
the theory, if accepted, would allow a claimant to repackage any design-defect claim as one for implied warranty, the NJPLA’s exclusivity provision controls. On the express warranty count, the court found the claim independently deficient because the complaint failed to identify any specific affirmation, promise, or description that formed the basis of a bargain with Vicente. The court reaffirmed the New Jersey principle that general references to product safety “assuranc - es” or marketing materials, without specific warranty language, cannot support an express warranty claim. On the design-defect claim, the court applied the well- established pleading requirement that a plaintiff must allege either that the product’s risks outweighed its utility or that a technologically feasible and practical alternative design existed that would have reduced harm without substantially impairing the product’s function. The court dismissed the claim because Vicente’s amended complaint still failed to identify a reasonable alternative design or provide a risk-utility analysis ‒ deficiencies the court had flagged in its prior dismissal without prejudice. Together, Vicente and the broader body of District of New Jersey case law it reflects establish that NJPLA design-defect claims require more than conclusory allegations of defectiveness. Federal courts applying New Jersey law hold plaintiffs to a substantive plead - ing standard that mirrors the statute’s liability frame - work: a complaint must plausibly allege the elements of a specific NJPLA theory, not simply assert that a product was unsafe.
367 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook