Defending Products Liability Failure to Equip Lawsuits: Claims, Defenses, Diffusing Reptile and Safetyism Tactics

Lawsuits frequently assert that a product was defective and unreasonably dangerous because it was not equipped with an available safety feature or the newest technology. The automotive industry is particularly vulnerable to these types of lawsuits which invite inquiry into the manufacturer's thought processes and how it weighed the costs and benefits of not making such features standard equipment. Industry standards can be as important as government regulations. Cases involving debates over safety are ripe for "reptile" and other similar tactics.

Nonetheless, plaintiffs must still prove that the absence of the safety feature in question rendered the product unreasonably dangerous and caused the accident in question. Jurisdictions may employ different or multiple tests for what makes something "unreasonably dangerous." Research promoting the feature may be biased. The actual cost of the new feature, both when new and to repair, as well as customer willingness to accept the new feature, are all relevant and may assist defendants.

Listen as this panel of experienced product liability defense counsel discusses the difficulties of both plaintiffs and defendants in cases alleging that failure to equip a product with the specified improvements renders it unreasonably dangerous.