Product Liability Question

[cool_hardware52]

depends on the terms of the express or implied warranties at issue, but probably not.

however, strict liability would still apply under common law, which is why GARA capped liability at 18 years for small aircraft manufacturers (this happened in the early 1990's)

Er, ah well ya, that's why I posted a link. My point remains that OEMs have been found liable under conditions so tenuous that general aviation needed a new law to stay in business.

Tobin

 

[redacted]

the item is out of warranty.

you return it with a letter stating that fact, and that the item can not be used as it is inoperable.

there's no contractual (warranty) or negligence (tort) claim that can survive those facts

however, they can still file suit, so like everybody else said, you need to pass the problem over to your insurance company to defend

I believe the problem here is that the item was not inoperable. It did, in fact, operate; but it did not give correct results. The output may have actually resulted in a dangerous condition; that is, a safety defect. I doubt if the manufacturer's responsibilities expire with the warranty when it come to safety defects. Just like GM, the manufacturer has a continuing responsibility. But that does not give him the authority to confiscate or destroy the customer's property. If the problem is an anomaly, see what it takes to satisfy the customer. If it is a pattern failure, recall the product.

 

[Steve_C]

Does anything change if the product is returned with the unsafe notice and also not assembled. That is, the parts are returned so OP cannot use without putting it back together.

 

[redacted]

Does anything change if the product is returned with the unsafe notice and also not assembled. That is, the parts are returned so OP cannot use without putting it back together.

You mean maybe all GM needed to do was disconnect the battery cable and warn their customers that their ignitions switch might fail in a dangerous manner?

I suspect a manufacturer may have to bare some responsibility for manufacturing safety defects he sells along with his products.

 

[Lorenzoid]

What is your alternative? NOT returning the item to the owner? Permanently rendering it inoperable, it and returning the remains? I think you are more likely to get sued by doing that than by returning it along with a "clear explanation that is dangerous to use."

 

[H2Andy]

the item is a few years out of Warranty.

You discover that the item is unfixable, but is dangerous if used.

thanks, Awap

how is the item dangerous to use exactly?

also, is it a design or manufacturing flaw that rendered it inaccurate and unfixable? what exactly happened to the item?




---------- Post added September 18th, 2015 at 01:27 PM ----------

Er, ah well ya, that's why I posted a link. My point remains that OEMs have been found liable under conditions so tenuous that general aviation needed a new law to stay in business.

Tobin

i misread the OP. I thought the item was no longer operable and thus strict liability didn't apply

now we need to figure out exactly why is the item operating incorrectly

 

[redacted]

thanks, Awap

how is the item dangerous to use exactly?

also, is it a design or manufacturing flaw that rendered it inaccurate and unfixable? what exactly happened to the item?

Can't find the referenced thread right now - love this search function.

I don't know and I don't believe it was specified in the referenced thread. As I recall, that thread reported a manufacturer disabling a computer that was sent in for download problem. Computer was returned with the non-user replaceable battery removed and notice that the computer was not working properly. I believe a poster suggested this might have been done because the computer was producing unsafe results that could put the diver in danger.

---------- Post added September 18th, 2015 at 12:33 PM ----------

What is your alternative? NOT returning the item to the owner? Permanently rendering it inoperable, it and returning the remains? I think you are more likely to get sued by doing that than by returning it along with a "clear explanation that is dangerous to use."

I don't disagree but I suspect it might lose a few customers if no compensation is offered ($100 off cert?). And, if this is a systemic problem rather than an anomaly, it would evidence the mfgr's knowledge of that problem for future incidents.

 

[Lorenzoid]

. . . And, if this is a systemic problem rather than an anomaly, it would evidence the mfgr's knowledge of that problem for future incidents.

That's a whole 'nuther issue. If there's any suspicion of it being a systemic problem, I'd call the products liability lawyer immediately for advice on how to proceed with respect to that customer and others who have bought the product. Maybe a recall is in order? That's nothing to mess around with, as it could be the undoing of the whole company.

 

[seaseadee]

(think strict liability vs. warranty/negligence)

Can you give us non-lawyer types the fisher-price version of the difference?

 

[diversteve]

Can't find the referenced thread right now - love this search function.

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/co...s/513176-scubapro-buyers-beware-informed.html

Isn't that one of the oil-filled models also with the welded (not soldered) in battery? So the question of returning it non-functional changes slightly.