When Warning Is NOT Necessary, And Your Product Liability Claim Will Be Denied

The first thing every person who has been injured by a defective product does is check the warning labels and instructions to see if what just happened was something the manufacturer of the product warned about. And when the injured person sees no mention of the defect or danger, they think they are about to get ridiculously richer.

Well, wrong. There are certain circumstances in which no warning is necessary. And today we invited our Palmdale product liability attorney from the Compass Law Group, LLP to explore the circumstances in which the manufacturer is not required to provide a warning of potential danger and, therefore, cannot be held liable for injuries resulting from that danger.

The danger is generally known and recognized. This is the common grounds of the sophisticated user defense manufacturers mount to defend themselves against lawsuits. Manufacturers and other parties in the chain of distribution have no duty to warn of dangers that are generally known to the consumer.

Not reasonably foreseeable misuse or abuse. If the misuse or abuse of the product that resulted in injuries is not reasonably foreseeable, the manufacturer will not be held responsible for the injuries and has no duty to warn against unforeseeable misuse or abuse.

The danger is obvious and would have been prevented had the consumer exercised ordinary care.

The consumer suffered a rare, unforeseeable, and unique allergy in food, drug and cosmetic cases. A manufacturer of the food, drug or cosmetic product has a duty to warn of danger only if the product contains an ingredient to which a significant number of people are allergic and the danger of that ingredient is not generally known and recognized. Also, manufacturers of these products have a duty to warn of potential danger if the consumer does not reasonably expect to find this particular ingredient in the product. In all other cases, there is no duty to warn.

The manufacturer’s duty to warn extends only to his/her own product. A manufacturer has no duty to warn consumers of the dangers or risks in using other products unless the consumer can be reasonably expected to use the manufacturer’s own product in combination with other products, and the combination of these products can be potentially dangerous.

The injured person is a sophisticated user. A manufacturer cannot be held liable for harm and injured caused to a consumer if the manufacturer can prove that the consumer is a sophisticated user of this particular product and was reasonably expected to be aware of the risk, harm, or danger. “The sophisticated user defense is one of the most common defenses in product liability lawsuits,” explains our experienced product liability attorney in Palmdale.

The product is an unavoidably unsafe product. As long as the manufacturer of such products adheres to safety regulations, carefully manufactures and markets them, and puts appropriate restrictions, instructions and warnings, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for injuries or damages caused by unavoidably unsafe products. Our Palmdale product liability attorney explains that unavoidable unsafe products range from prescription drugs, medical devices, and vaccines to guns, dry-cleaning solvents, bathroom cleaners, hair perms, bleach, dye, and many others.

If you have been injured by a product in Palmdale or elsewhere in California, consult with a skilled lawyer to determine whether or not the manufacturer of the product and other parties in the chain of distribution can be held liable.


Find out if you have a case in a few minutes, call us at (310) 289-7126

Recent Posts

Can I Sue Amazon for a Defective Product Injury?
Most Common Personal Injury Claims: Types and Causes Explained
What To Do After an Uber Accident in California?
How Do I Know If I Have a Good Settlement Offer? Evaluating Fairness in Personal Injury Cases
Can You Sue for a Vaping Device Injury?

Our Headquarters

Skip to content