In order to win a defective product claim, the plaintiff needs to demonstrate the occurrence of some level of harm, or some degree of loss, as a result of the reported defect.

Particulars on the harm done to, or the loss suffered by the plaintiff

It could be a financial loss. When plaintiffs claim a financial loss, they eliminate their ability to seek compensation for pain and suffering. If a plaintiff can show that he or she has sustained an injury, after using the defective product, then the value of the plaintiff’s claim increases.

Questions that must be answered

Was the product unreasonably dangerous? Some products are supposed to have a dangerous feature. For instance, a highly effective implement for peeling potatoes could have a very sharp blade. If that same blade were not covered in some way, while the product remained on a store’s shelf, then that same peeling implement could be called unreasonably dangerous.

Did the defect cause the injury to the plaintiff? Had the plaintiff used the product, as intended? Were the plaintiff’s actions the ones that were called for in the instructions that came with the defective item?

Elements not normally associated with a defective product claim

The court does not check to see if the manufacturer or seller had taken a reasonable approach to their job. In other words, the court does not ask whether or not they had behaved in the way that a reasonable person would?
The personal injury lawyer in Mississauga knows that the court does not take into consideration the possibility that the manufacturer or the seller had been negligent. While that element is not part of a defective product claim, a “volunteer” marketer could encourage dangerous utilization of a given product. That was shown by the President’s attempt to encourage the intake of antiseptics.

The light that the President has placed on another aspect of a defective product claim

As stated earlier, the consumer that has chosen to buy and use a certain product is supposed to use it in the manner intended. In the past, consumers that failed to use a product, as intended, could not file a defective product claim, if they became injured.

What happens if it gets people thinking that they might be able to ingest an antiseptic? How should manufacturers react to the change in the public’s perception of a given product’s intended use? In the spring of 2020, the makers of antiseptics began to place a large warning on their products. They warned consumers not to ingest that dangerous substance. The manufactures had to react to the public’s re-interpretation for the intended use of that particular product.