Manufacturing Defects vs. Design Defects

Product defects are generally put into three categories: design defects, manufacturing defects, and marketing defects. Marketing defects are defects in the manner in which a product is sold. This type of defect can include inadequate warnings and/or instructions. Design defects are in a manner of speaking, intended. This type of defect is inherent in the design of the product. Manufacturing defects on the other hand are defects that were not intended.

Planned or unplanned defects

How do you know whether the product that injured you was defectively designed or defectively manufactured? A very simple way to look at it is to look at whether the defect was planned or unplanned. You will find a design defect in every individual product produced according to the product plan. A manufacturing defect, on the other hand, is an unplanned defect. You would generally expect to find only a small percentage of manufacturing defects in a group of products produced according to a particular plan. Manufacturing defects, unlike design defects, are not intended parts of the product. A manufacturing defect is, in essence, the result of a mistake in the manufacturing process. Under strict product liability law, even if the manufacturer was extremely careful in manufacturing a product, it will still be held responsible for any manufacturing defect in the product. The reason courts impose liability without fault is that it is believed that doing so will encourage greater investment in product safety than would a faultbased system of liability.

In a manufacturing defect case, often the manufacturer's design or marketing standards can be used to show that the product was defective. But proving how or why the flaw or defect occurred can be a difficult if not impossible proposition for the plaintiff. By eliminating the issue of manufacturer fault from the plaintiff's case, strict liability is thought to reduce the transaction costs involved in litigating that issue. Additionally, in many cases manufacturing defects are caused by the manufacturer's negligence even though plaintiffs may have difficulty proving it. Strict liability in these cases allows deserving plaintiffs to succeed notwithstanding what would otherwise be difficult or insurmountable problems of proof.

A design defect is some flaw in the intentional design of a product that makes it unreasonably dangerous. Thus, a design defect exists in a product from its inception. For example, a chair that is designed with only three legs might be considered defectively designed because it tips over too easily. Design defect claims often require a showing of negligence; however, strict liability may be imposed for an unreasonably dangerous design if the plaintiff can present evidence that there was a costeffective alternative design that would have prevented the risk of injury. In some cases, if a product was so unreasonably dangerous that it never should have been manufactured, the availability of a safer design might not be required to hold the designer liable.

Different courts use different tests to determine whether a product is defectively designed. Some courts say that a product is defective if it is unreasonably dangerous as designed. Others say that a product is defective if it is not safe for its intended, or reasonably foreseeable use, as designed. A good example of the difference between these two versions of design defect is found in the case of cars. Imagine a person injured in an automobile accident bringing a lawsuit, which alleges that the car he was driving was defective because it was designed in such a way that it would invariably explode if involved in an impact while going more than thirty miles per hour. Some courts might argue that the car, as designed, was not unsafe because it is the action of crashing the car, not the car itself, which causes the injury. Those courts might say that since the design of the car was not unsafe, it was not defectively designed. Other courts would say that the car was defective because it was reasonably foreseeable that a user would crash the car while going more than thirty miles per hour, thus the manufacturer should design the car with such collisions in mind.

While some courts require that a product be proved both defective in design and unreasonably dangerous because of the defect, many courts have combined the defect and danger elements. In those courts, a product is held to be defectively designed if it is unreasonably dangerous because of its design. Courts use various definitions of "unreasonably dangerous," including a product that is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect, or a product whose risks are so great that a reasonable seller would not place the product on the market, or a product design whose risks outweigh its benefits. Although product liability law allows liability without fault, a plaintiff may seek to recover based upon allegations and proof of negligent manufacture or negligent design. A claim for negligent manufacture alleges that the manufacturer did not use reasonable care in manufacturing the product. A claim for a design defect under the theory of negligence alleges that the product is defective because it was designed without reasonable care.

Conclusion

The law holds manufacturers, sellers and distributors responsible for products that pose a danger to users or consumers as a result of design and/or manufacturing defects. If a product has injured you, you may be able to recover for your injuries under products liability or negligence law. An attorney with experience in handling product liability and negligence cases can analyze the facts surrounding your injury and determine whether the product that injured you was defectively designed, defectively manufactured or both.

Return to Main