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

In South Carolina, the doctrine of comparative fault applies in product liability cases. This means that the fault of all parties involved in an accident is compared to assign responsibility and damages. This includes the manufacturer, as well as any other entities involved in the design, manufacture, or marketing of the product. The doctrine of comparative fault recognizes the idea that when multiple parties are responsible for an accident, each party should be held accountable for their share of fault. Under South Carolina’s comparative fault system, if a plaintiff is found to be partially at fault for an injury, their damages will be reduced by their percentage of fault. For example, if a plaintiff is found to be 25% at fault for an injury, they will only receive 75% of the damages that would have been awarded if they were not found at fault. Ultimately, the doctrine of comparative fault seeks to fairly distribute the damages amongst the parties involved in a product liability claim. It also provides a way to fairly and accurately assign fault and liability in the case of multiple parties. This allows for a more objective outcome and helps to ensure that justice is served.

Related FAQs

What is “strict liability”?
What is the “risk-benefit test”?
Is a manufacturer liable for products they did not manufacture but only sold?
What type of damages can be recovered from a product liability lawsuit?
What is a “consumer expectation” test?
What is “strict tort liability”?
What is the difference between product liability and premises liability?
Does a product’s age affect its liability status?
What types of legal documents are required to bring a product liability claim?
What is “implied warranty of merchantability”?

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

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts