How does the doctrine of comparative fault apply in product liability cases?

The doctrine of comparative fault applies to product liability cases in Oregon in situations where multiple parties may be responsible for an accident. This means that, if someone is injured by a product, then each party may be assigned a percentage of fault based on their contribution to the accident. The injured person’s compensation may be reduced based on their percentage of fault. For example, if a person is injured by a defective product, then they could sue the manufacturer, as well as anyone else who was involved in the production and distribution of the product. The court may assign different percentages of fault to each party based on the facts of the case. For instance, if the product had two defects, the court may assign one-half of the fault to the manufacturer and one-half of the fault to the distributor. In Oregon, the courts use a doctrine known as modified comparative fault which allows the injured person to recover damages so long as their fault does not exceed that of the other parties. This means that if their fault is equal to or less than the other parties, they can still be compensated for their injuries. However, if their fault is found to be greater than the other parties, then they are not entitled to any damages.

Related FAQs

What is the foreseeability factor in product liability cases?
What is a “failure to warn” claim?
What type of damages can be recovered from a product liability lawsuit?
How is the price of a defective product determined?
How does a product liability claim arise due to a design defect?
What happens when a product defect causes a person’s death?
What is a “negligence per se” claim?
What is the burden of proof in product liability cases?
How does the law distinguish between a product’s design and its warnings?
How can consumers prove that a product is unsafe or defective?

How does the doctrine of comparative fault apply in product liability cases?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts