Product Liability

Product liability law is meant to compensate persons injured by defective products and to deter manufacturers from marketing such products.

The Problem

Product liability laws in some states fail to send clear signals to manufacturers about how to avoid liability, and hold manufacturers liable for failure to adopt certain designs when the manufacturers neither knew, nor could have anticipated, the risk.

ATRA’s Position

ATRA supports legislation that: governs all product liability actions, irrespective of the theory on which they are brought, so that plaintiffs cannot evade the law by inventing new theories of recovery; permits a plaintiff to recover damages only upon proof that the product was defective and that the defect was the cause of the harm; sets out clear rules for determining when a product is defective; provides clear standards for establishing liability based on manufacturing defects, design defects, and warning defects; provides clear rules requiring proof of causation.

Search Through ATRA Reforms

Search through all of ATRA's reforms around Product Liability
Product Liability Reform: HB 1 (1987).
Provides that a product’s design is not defective if: (1) an injury occurs due to the inherent characteristics of a product, where the characteristics...
Ohio
Product Liability Reform: SB 1495 (1995).

Excludes product sellers from strict liability in product liability actions.

New Jersey
Product Liability Reform: SB 2805 (1987).
Provides that a manufacturer or seller of a product is liable only if the plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the product was not...
New Jersey
Product Liability Reform: SB 76 (1993); RSA 359-F.
Establishes a right of indemnification for New Hampshire manufacturers from a claim for damages by the original purchaser of a product, where the prod...
New Hampshire
Product Liability Reform: Study Committee: SB 339 (1992); RSA 411-A.

Establishes a committee to study the impact of product liability on New Hampshire businesses.

New Hampshire
Product Liability Reform: State of the Art Defense: HB 936 (1988).

Provides a state of the art defense for defendants in product liability cases.

New Hampshire
Product Liability Reform: HB 1369 (1995).
Establishes a ten‑year statute of repose in product liability actions.  Provides a government standards defense.  Prohibits the award of punitive dama...
North Dakota
Product Liability Reform: HB 637 (1995); Amended N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-1.1.
Provides that there shall be no strict liability in tort for product liability actions.  Provides statutory defenses to product liability claims, incl...
North Carolina
Product Liability Reform: SB 380 (1987).

Provides statutory defenses to product liability claims, including assumption of the risk and misuse of product.

Montana
Product Liability Reform: H.B. 13 (special session) (2004); Amended Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-63.
Provides that the seller of a product, other than a manufacturer, cannot be held liable unless the seller had substantial control over the harm causin...
Mississippi


Product Liability News and Press

Explore ATRA's most recent press releases and blogs around Product Liability

2nd Circuit Revives Acetaminophen Lawsuits, Overturning Judge Cote’s Rule 702 Ruling 

The American Tort Reform Association today chided the 2nd Circui...

ATRA: High Court Affirms Federal Labeling Standards, Rejects Made-for-Litigation Science

The American Tort Reform Association today issued a statement on yesterday...

The High Cost of Junk Science Verdicts in Los Angeles

This op-ed was authored by ATRA’s Lauren Sheets Jarrell and was orig...

Search Resources

Search through all of ATRA's Amicus Briefs, Reports, and Other Resources around Product Liability
Search All
States
Status
Post Types
Date
Foor v. Alabama
(Ala., Filed December 12, 2025): Arguing that allowing the circuit court’s so-called “sharing protective order” to stand would make Alabama a signifi...
Alabama
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Sanctionable: The unsupported, exaggerated, and suspicious claims plaguing our nation’s courts
There is growing concern that many lawsuits filed in our nation’s courts are unsupported, involve manufactured or exaggerated injuries, or stem from ...
California, Florida, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania
Lyon v. Riverside Methodist Hospital et. al.
(OH., filed October 7, 2025): Arguing that the Court should review the lower court’s decision because the Court should comprehensively address the co...
Ohio
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Atlas Turner, Inc. v. Welch
(U.S., filed September 22, 2025): Arguing the Court should review the use of receiverships by the South Carolina asbestos court.  The receivership pr...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Letter to House Judiciary Committee re: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Stone Slab Products Act
This letter was submitted on behalf of the American Tort Reform Association to express our support for H.R. 5437, the “Protection of Lawful Commerce ...
California
Letter to DOJ re: RFI on State Laws Having Significant Adverse Effects on the National Economy or Interstate Commerce
Re: Request for Information on State Laws Having Significant Adverse Effects on the National Economy or Significant Adverse Effects on Interstate Com...
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish
(U.S., filed September 12, 2025): Arguing that the Louisiana coastal litigation proves the importance of federal officer removal.  The Government law...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Suncor Energy Inc., et. al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, et. al.
(U.S., filed September 12, 2025): Urging the Court to grant the petition for certiari.  Arguing that global climate change is not traditional st...
SCOTUS
  • Court Granted Cert iconCourt Granted Cert
Sommerville v. Union Carbide and Covestro LLC
(4th Circ., filed September 9, 2025): Supporting rehearing en banc. Arguing that Article III standing requires an injury that is concrete and particu...
4th Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Ortiz v. Daimler Trucks North America LLC
(CA., filed September 4, 2025): Urging the court to review the lower court’s decision because in combination with the decision in Gilead, it threaten...
California
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided



The American Tort Reform Association is the nation’s first organization dedicated exclusively to reforming the civil justice system through education and legislative enactment.

To receive occasional updates from ATRA, enter your email address:
By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and consent to receive updates.
© 2026 ATRA. All rights reserved.