Defective products are subject to a strict-liability framework -- proof of negligence is not required.

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.1, 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:

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:

• 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)2 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:15-5.13.

The O'Brien risk-utility test for design defect.

The risk-utility test under O'Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 (1983)1 weighs the product's utility against its risks. Factors:

1. Usefulness and desirability of the product.
2. Safety aspects -- likelihood and probable seriousness of injury.
3. Availability of substitute products that meet the same need and are safer.
4. Manufacturer's ability to eliminate the unsafe character without impairing utility or making the product too expensive.
5. User's ability to avoid danger through care.
6. User's anticipated awareness of inherent dangers.
7. 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.1 handles motor-vehicle safety. Recall process under 49 C.F.R. Part 5732 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)1, 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 Riegel1 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)1, 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)2, and Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013)3, 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. 4071 (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. § 14071 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:14-21; discovery rule may extend.
• Property damage only: 6 years under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-12.
• Wrongful death: 2 years from death under N.J.S.A. 2A:31-33.
• Statute of repose: 10 years from substantial completion for improvements to real property under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.14; 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.

How our fees work in an injury or tort case.

These matters are handled on a contingency-fee basis -- there is no upfront attorney fee, and no attorney fee at all unless we recover for you. For tort cases, New Jersey Court Rule 1:21-7 sets a tiered fee schedule, calculated on the net recovery (after the case costs and expenses the firm advances). The schedule steps down in stages as the recovery grows -- a built-in client protection that caps the standard fee -- and it works hand in hand with the rest of the Rule. Serious injury and tort cases often run for years and require the firm to advance substantial costs -- expert witnesses, depositions, medical records, and litigation expenses that regularly reach tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, entirely at the firm's risk. Rule 1:21-7(f) recognizes that: where a case has demanded that kind of time, expense, and complexity, the firm may apply -- on written notice to you -- to the Assignment Judge, who determines a reasonable fee in light of all the circumstances. In other words, on the hardest-fought cases a judge, not the firm alone, decides what is fair. We walk you through exactly how your fee is calculated, and set it out in your written fee agreement, before you sign.