Evidence is freshest in the first 48 hours.
Photographs, witness names, incident reports, treatment notes, and a daily symptom log should be preserved immediately.
Defective products are subject to a strict-liability framework — proof of negligence is not required.
Design defect, manufacturing defect, warning defect. The NJ Product Liability Act, the risk-utility test from O'Brien v. Muskin, federal preemption analysis for medical devices and generic drugs, and the deep discovery into the manufacturer's design and incident records.
What we do. Defective product cases under the NJ Product Liability Act — design defect, manufacturing defect, warning defect. Auto/vehicle defects (airbag, seatbelt, fuel system, rollover, tire, ADAS, EV battery, transmission); medical devices; consumer products; industrial equipment; pharmaceutical injury where preemption analysis allows.
What we don't do. Simon Law Group does not handle medical malpractice (individual-physician-deviation cases). Some pharmaceutical and medical-device claims are heavily preempted by federal law and require specialty MDL counsel; we evaluate preemption at the consultation and coordinate with MDL co-counsel where the case is more appropriately handled there.
The cases come in several patterns. The driver whose airbag deployed with metallic shrapnel from the inflator, leaving facial lacerations the surgeons are still revising months later. The young mother whose stroller folded with the child in it because the lock mechanism failed in the third month of normal use. The construction supervisor whose hydraulic press cycled with his hand still in the work area because the two-hand-control safety circuit had a known intermittent fault the manufacturer had not yet recalled. The patient whose pelvic-mesh implant has caused chronic pain, dyspareunia, and erosion through tissue that no surgeon has yet been able to fully revise. The grandmother whose battery-powered medical device caught fire on her bedside table at 3 AM. The professional cyclist whose carbon-fiber handlebar failed on a descent at 32 mph from a documented delamination defect.
These cases run through the NJ Product Liability Act with deep discovery into the manufacturer's design rationale, incident history, and decision-making about whether and when to recall. The strict-liability framework means the plaintiff need not prove the manufacturer was negligent — only that the product was defective. The work is establishing the defect through engineering expertise and showing that the defect caused the specific injury.
The NJ Product Liability Act — strict liability with three defect categories.
Under the NJ Product Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1 et seq.source, a manufacturer or seller of a product is liable for harm caused by a product that is "not reasonably fit, suitable, and safe" for its intended purpose. The plaintiff must prove:
- The product was defective.
- The defect existed when the product left the manufacturer's control.
- The defect made the product not reasonably safe for its intended use.
- The defect caused the plaintiff's injury.
Three categories of defect:
- Design defect. The product is unsafe as designed — every unit of the design carries the defect. The risk-utility test from O'Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 (1983)source governs.
- Manufacturing defect. The specific unit deviates from the intended design (broken weld, missing component, contamination), making this unit unsafe even though the design itself is sound.
- Warning defect. The product carries inadequate warnings or instructions for safe use; the manufacturer had a duty to warn about non-obvious risks the manufacturer knew or should have known.
Strict liability means proof of negligence is not required. The plaintiff need not show the manufacturer was careless — only that the product was defective. Available defenses include substantial alteration of the product post-sale (defendant must prove); misuse outside intended or reasonably foreseeable uses; and comparative fault under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1source.
The O'Brien risk-utility test for design defect.
The risk-utility test under O'Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 (1983)source weighs the product's utility against its risks. Factors:
- Usefulness and desirability of the product.
- Safety aspects — likelihood and probable seriousness of injury.
- Availability of substitute products that meet the same need and are safer.
- Manufacturer's ability to eliminate the unsafe character without impairing utility or making the product too expensive.
- User's ability to avoid danger through care.
- User's anticipated awareness of inherent dangers.
- Feasibility of spreading the loss through pricing or insurance.
Modern design-defect litigation typically focuses on the safer-alternative-design factor: was there a known design modification (a guard, a sensor, a different material, a different geometry) that would have prevented or substantially reduced injury, was it feasible at the time of manufacture, was it economically practical. Expert engineering testimony is usually essential — mechanical engineer, biomechanical engineer, materials engineer, or industry-specific specialist who can analyze the actual design, the alternative, the engineering tradeoffs, and the cost differential. Industry standards (ANSI, ASTM, ISO) and federal regulations (NHTSA, CPSC, FDA, OSHA) provide additional benchmarks.
Motor vehicle and auto-component cases.
Common vehicle defect categories: airbag failures (Takata inflator MDL involved millions of recalled units); seatbelt failures (latching, retraction, integration); fuel-system fires (post-collision fuel-system integrity); roof-crush in rollover events; tire failures (separation, tread loss); brake-system failures (master cylinder, ABS, hydraulic line); ADAS failures (lane-keeping, automatic emergency braking, adaptive cruise control); EV-specific issues (thermal-runaway battery fires, charging-system failures, regenerative-braking faults); transmission defects causing unintended acceleration; structural failures.
The regulatory framework: NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.source handles motor-vehicle safety. Recall process under 49 C.F.R. Part 573source requires manufacturer notice and reporting for defects related to motor-vehicle safety. NHTSA databases (recalls, TSBs, complaints, investigations, special crash investigations) can be valuable civil-case evidence. The civil case proceeds independently of any recall.
Discovery in vehicle cases includes: the manufacturer's own engineering analysis; FMEA records; prior-incident database; service-bulletin and recall history; warranty-claim database; supplier records for component-supplier issues; EDR (Event Data Recorder) data from the involved vehicle; vehicle telematics data; CAN-bus data; black-box reconstructions.
Medical devices and federal preemption.
Medical-device cases run through the PLA but with significant federal preemption overlays that depend on the device's FDA approval pathway:
- PMA (Premarket Approval) Class III devices. Under Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008)source, the Medical Device Amendments expressly preempt state-law claims that would impose requirements different from or in addition to federal requirements for PMA-approved devices. State-law claims that parallel federal requirements can survive; pure design-defect or failure-to-warn claims that would impose state-law safety standards beyond the federal approval are often preempted.
- Section 510(k)-cleared devices. Not subject to Riegelsource preemption in the same way because 510(k) is substantial-equivalence clearance, not PMA approval. State-law claims may proceed under standard PLA framework.
Preemption analysis is device-specific and complex; we evaluate at the consultation. Where heavily preempted, the case may need MDL co-counsel or may be referred.
Pharmaceutical drug cases.
Pharmaceutical preemption analysis depends on branded vs. generic:
- Branded drugs. Under Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009)source, branded-drug failure-to-warn claims are generally not preempted because manufacturers can unilaterally strengthen warnings under FDA's CBE regulation.
- Generic drugs. PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011)source, and Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013)source, held many generic-drug failure-to-warn and design-defect claims are preempted because generic manufacturers must match the branded label.
Pharmaceutical cases involve substantial multi-district litigation (MDL) coordination for drugs with thousands of similar claims. We evaluate the MDL landscape and coordinate where applicable.
Recall evidence and N.J.R.E. 407.
Recall evidence has substantial value but is constrained by N.J.R.E. 407source (subsequent remedial measures). The interplay:
- Pre-injury recalls. Issued before plaintiff's injury. Valuable — establishes manufacturer awareness of defect, supports failure-to-warn theories, often establishes the defect specifications. Adequate consumer notice often becomes a separate issue.
- Post-injury recalls. Face the N.J.R.E. 407 limitation but admissible for permitted purposes — feasibility of design changes, impeachment, ownership/control.
- Recall non-compliance. Where the recall was issued but the manufacturer failed to comply adequately, the non-compliance itself becomes an issue.
Recalls also produce regulatory records that are discoverable — manufacturer correspondence with NHTSA, CPSC, FDA; engineering analyses; field-incident reports; internal decision-making about whether and when to recall.
Multi-district litigation (MDL) practice.
Where a defective product has injured many plaintiffs nationwide, the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) may consolidate cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1407source for coordinated pretrial proceedings in a single district. Recent and ongoing MDLs include Takata airbag inflators, transvaginal mesh, hernia mesh, talc, Roundup (glyphosate), 3M Combat Arms earplugs, Zantac, hair-relaxer products, and others. MDL consolidation affects discovery, motion practice, bellwether trials, settlement structures, and case-specific deadlines. We monitor MDL formation and coordinate with MDL counsel where appropriate.
Statute of limitations and statute of repose.
Limitations:
- Personal injury: 2 years from accrual under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2source; discovery rule may extend.
- Property damage only: 6 years under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1source.
- Wrongful death: 2 years from death under N.J.S.A. 2A:31-3source.
- Statute of repose: 10 years from substantial completion for improvements to real property under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1source; application to mass-produced products has been litigated and generally does not apply, but custom installations may be covered.
The statute of limitations is among the most common reasons cases that look promising on the merits cannot proceed. Contact us immediately, particularly in cases where the injury manifested late or where the product was used over an extended period before the defect was identified.
Frequently asked questions
A product I bought injured me. Is the manufacturer automatically responsible?
Not automatically — but the NJ Product Liability Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1 et seq.source) establishes a strict-liability framework where the plaintiff need not prove negligence, only that the product was defective in a way that made it not reasonably safe for its intended use. Three defect categories — design, manufacturing, warning — each has its own elements.
The NJ Product Liability Act under N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1 et seq.source establishes the framework. The plaintiff must prove: (1) the product was defective; (2) the defect existed when the product left the manufacturer's control; (3) the defect made the product not reasonably safe for its intended use; (4) the defect caused the plaintiff's injury. Three categories of defect: (a) Design defect — the product was unsafe as designed, even though manufactured to specification. The test is the risk-utility analysis under O'Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 (1983)source, weighing the product's utility against its risks and considering the availability of safer alternative designs. (b) Manufacturing defect — the product deviated from the intended design, making this particular unit unsafe even though the design itself is sound. (c) Warning defect — the product carried inadequate warnings or instructions for its safe use; the manufacturer had a duty to warn about non-obvious risks. Strict liability means the plaintiff need not prove the manufacturer was negligent — only that the product was defective. Defenses include substantial alteration of the product post-sale, misuse outside the product's intended or reasonably foreseeable uses, and comparative fault under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1source. The statute of limitations is 2 years from accrual under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2source; the statute of repose under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1source may bar claims involving improvements to real property after a long elapsed period.
What is a "design defect" — and how is it proven?
A design defect makes a category of products unsafe — every unit of the same design carries the defect. Proof typically requires expert engineering testimony establishing that an alternative safer design was technically feasible, economically practical, and would have prevented or significantly mitigated the injury. The risk-utility analysis under O'Briensource weighs the product's utility against its inherent risks.
Design defect claims target the underlying design of the product — meaning every unit of that model has the same defect. The risk-utility test under O'Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 (1983)source, is the central framework. The factors include the usefulness and desirability of the product, the likelihood and probable seriousness of injury, the availability of substitute products that meet the same need and are safer, the manufacturer's ability to eliminate the unsafe character without impairing utility or making the product too expensive, the user's ability to avoid danger through care, the user's anticipated awareness of inherent dangers, and the feasibility of spreading the loss. Modern design-defect litigation typically focuses on the availability of safer alternative designs. Expert engineering testimony is usually essential — typically a mechanical engineer, biomechanical engineer, materials engineer, or industry-specific specialist who can analyze the actual design, the alternative, the engineering tradeoffs, and the cost differential. Industry standards (ANSI, ASTM, ISO, sector-specific standards) and federal regulations (NHTSA for motor vehicles, CPSC for consumer products, FDA for medical devices, OSHA for industrial products) provide additional benchmarks. The manufacturer's design records — design rationale documents, FMEA records, design-review minutes, prior incident reports, recall history — are key discovery targets.
A medical device or medical implant caused my injury. Does this go through the Product Liability Act?
Yes — medical devices are products. But federal preemption can bar some state-law claims against PMA (Premarket Approval) Class III devices under Riegel v. Medtronic, 552 U.S. 312 (2008)source. Section 510(k)-cleared devices may remain subject to state-law liability. Generic-drug warning claims are often preempted under Mensing/Bartlett. The preemption analysis is device-specific and complex.
Medical device cases run through the Product Liability Act but with significant federal preemption overlays. The framework depends on the device's FDA approval pathway. (1) PMA (Premarket Approval) Class III devices — Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008)source, held that the Medical Device Amendments expressly preempt state-law claims that would impose requirements different from or in addition to federal requirements for PMA-approved devices. State-law claims that parallel federal requirements can survive; pure design-defect or failure-to-warn claims that would impose state-law safety standards beyond the federal approval are often preempted. (2) Section 510(k)-cleared devices — these are not subject to Riegel preemption in the same way because 510(k) is substantial-equivalence clearance, not a PMA safety determination. State-law claims against 510(k) devices may proceed under the standard Product Liability Act framework. (3) Pharmaceuticals — Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009)source, held branded-drug failure-to-warn claims are generally not preempted because manufacturers can unilaterally strengthen warnings under FDA's CBE regulation. (4) Generic pharmaceuticals — PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011)source, and Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013)source, held that many generic-drug failure-to-warn and design-defect claims are preempted because generic manufacturers must match the branded label. The preemption analysis requires attention to the specific regulatory pathway for each device or drug. Medical device cases may involve multi-district litigation (MDL) coordination; we navigate the MDL framework where applicable.
My case involves a defective auto part or vehicle. Does that go to NHTSA or to court?
Both, but on parallel tracks. NHTSA recalls and vehicle-safety records are regulatory tools that can produce repair or replacement. Civil-tort claims for injury proceed independently under the Product Liability Act. NHTSA recalls and TSBs (Technical Service Bulletins) can be valuable evidence in the civil case.
Motor vehicle defective-product cases include airbag deployment failures (Takata airbag MDL involved millions of recalled units), seatbelt failures, fuel-system fires, roof-crush in rollover accidents, tire failures, vehicle electronic stability control failures, ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) failures, transmission defects causing unintended acceleration, brake-system failures, and EV-specific issues. The regulatory framework: NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) under 49 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.source handles motor-vehicle safety. The recall process — manufacturer-initiated or NHTSA-ordered under 49 C.F.R. Part 573source — requires reporting and remedial steps for safety-related defects. NHTSA databases can be valuable evidence. The civil-tort framework proceeds under the NJ Product Liability Act; the civil case is independent of any recall. A vehicle does not have to be recalled for a defective-product claim to proceed, and a recall is not conclusive proof of liability.
There's a recall on the product that injured me. Does that prove the case?
A recall can be significant evidence but is not automatically dispositive. It may help show the manufacturer's awareness of the defect and often identifies the product condition at issue. But the plaintiff still must prove that the defect caused the specific injury and that the defect existed at the relevant time; a post-injury recall may raise N.J.R.E. 407 remedial-measure issues.
Recall evidence has substantial value in defective-product litigation but is not automatically dispositive. Under N.J.R.E. 407source, subsequent remedial measures are generally inadmissible to prove negligence or culpability but admissible for impeachment, ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures. The interplay with recalls: (1) Pre-injury recalls can establish manufacturer awareness of the defect and the specific defect description. (2) Post-injury recalls face the N.J.R.E. 407 limitation but can come in for permitted purposes. (3) Recall non-compliance can become its own issue. Recalls also often produce regulatory documents that are discoverable, including manufacturer correspondence with NHTSA, CPSC, FDA, or other regulators.
How long do I have to file a defective-product claim?
Two years from accrual under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2source for personal-injury claims. Property-damage claims have a 6-year limit under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1source. The statute of repose under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1source can bar certain claims involving improvements to real property after a long elapsed period. Contact counsel immediately so deadline issues can be evaluated.
The personal-injury statute of limitations is 2 years from accrual under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2source. Accrual is typically the date of injury, but the discovery rule under Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267 (1973)source, may extend accrual for late-manifesting injuries where the plaintiff did not know and through reasonable diligence could not have known of the injury or its cause. Property-damage-only claims have a 6-year limitation under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1source. Three additional limits affect specific cases: (1) The 10-year statute of repose under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1source applies to claims involving improvements to real property. The application to product-liability claims involving building products has been litigated and can turn on product and installation facts. (2) Wrongful-death claims under N.J.S.A. 2A:31-3source are 2 years from death. (3) Federal limitation periods may apply where a federal claim is involved. The statute of limitations is one of the most common reasons cases that look promising on the merits cannot proceed. Contact counsel immediately, particularly in cases where the injury manifested late or where the product was used over an extended period before the defect was identified.
Consult
Request a Case Evaluation
Answer a few questions and choose how you want the firm to follow up. Your request goes straight to our intake team for prompt, personal review.
Consultation request. There is no charge to send this form or to talk through your situation.
Request received.
Your message went straight to our intake team. A real person reads every request that comes in, and you are never left waiting in a queue.
- Personal review. A member of our intake team reads your message and matches it to the right attorney.
- We reach out. Keep an eye out for a call, text, or email from our Somerville office, usually within one business day.
- Free consultation. If we can take your matter, we schedule time with the attorney who would actually handle it.
Please do not send additional confidential details until we confirm the firm can discuss your matter.
Reviewed by Erik Frins, Esq., Attorney, Personal Injury & Civil Litigation — May 2026
Related Practice Areas
Personal Injury — Pillar
PI pillar overview, including verbal threshold, comparative fault, contingency fees under R. 1:21-7.
Learn MoreCatastrophic Injury
Where defective-product injuries result in catastrophic outcomes — life-care planning and lien resolution.
Learn MoreConstruction Accidents
Worksite injuries from defective tools, equipment, or materials — overlapping liability tracks.
Learn MoreCar Accidents
Auto cases where a vehicle-component defect contributed to or caused the crash or injury.
Learn MoreGeographic scope
Serving 21 New Jersey counties.
Consult
Contact the Firm
Confidential and no-obligation.
Consultation request. There is no charge to send this form or to talk through your situation.
Request received.
Your message went straight to our intake team. A real person reads every request that comes in, and you are never left waiting in a queue.
- Personal review. A member of our intake team reads your message and matches it to the right attorney.
- We reach out. Keep an eye out for a call, text, or email from our Somerville office, usually within one business day.
- Free consultation. If we can take your matter, we schedule time with the attorney who would actually handle it.
Please do not send additional confidential details until we confirm the firm can discuss your matter.
What Happens Next
What happens after you reach out.
- We make sure we're the right firm.
We start with the basics: what kind of matter, which county, and how urgent, before any detailed legal discussion.
- You choose how we follow up.
Call, text, or email, whichever you prefer. Text consent is optional.
- Hold the confidential details.
Do not send privileged documents or sensitive narratives until the firm confirms it can discuss the matter.
- We review and follow up.
Our team reviews your request for urgency, practice fit, conflicts, deadlines, and availability before confirming next steps.
Submitting a form, downloading a guide, texting, or calling does not create an attorney-client relationship. That relationship begins only after we review your matter and sign a written agreement.