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

No related legislation or reform items to display.



Product Liability News and Press

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

The High Cost of Junk Science Verdicts in Los Angeles

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

Fraud on the Rise: New ATRA Report Exposes Systemic Lawsuit Abuse in Civil Courts

A new report released today by the American Tort Reform Association reveal...

American Tort Reform Association Applauds House Effort to Curb Abusive Lawsuits Targeting Manufacturers

The American Tort Reform Association announced its support for the Protect...

Search Resources

Search through all of ATRA's Amicus Briefs, Reports, and Other Resources around Product Liability
Search All
States
Status
Post Types
Date
Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co.
(Tenn., filed April 15, 2016): Arguing that Tennessee’s statutory limit on punitive damages is constitutional.  The statutory limit does not infringe ...
Tennessee
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
(11th Cir., filed April 22, 2016).  Arguing that reliance on general, non-specific verdicts to foreclose litigation of highly specific issues that may...
11th Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Davis v. Honeywell Inc.
(Cal., filed April 29, 2016): Arguing that the court should clarify what constitutes a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of developing ...
California
  • Court Denied Cert iconCourt Denied Cert
Beason v. I.E. Miller
(Ok., filed June 6, 2016): Arguing that the statutory limits on noneconomic damages are constitutional and does not violate a person’s right to a jury...
Oklahoma
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
In Re Dupont de Nemours and Company C-8 Litigation
(6th Cir., filed June 20, 2016): Arguing that the court improperly blended specific and general causation and that there is a vital distinction betwee...
6th Circuit
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby No. 15-513
(U.S., filed August 8, 2016): Arguing that the blatant violation of the “seal” requirement by relator in a false claims case should result in a dismis...
SCOTUS
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Robinson v. Pfizer
(8th. Cir., filed September 12, 2016): Arguing that expansive venue laws has led to venue shopping and abuses in Missouri.  The Court must reign in th...
8th Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Cerveny v. Aventis
(10th Cir., filed September 19, 2016): Arguing that courts must ask whether federal law authorized the defendant to do what the plaintiff claims state...
10th Circuit
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Hyundai Motor America v. Applewhite
(Miss., filed September 19, 2016): Arguing that under MS statute, evidence of a plaintiff’s nonuse of his seatbelt is admissible to refute a plaintiff...
Mississippi
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Walker v. Ford
(Col., filed September 27, 2016): Arguing that the“risk-benefit” test for strict product liability incorporates the “consumer expectation” test, such ...
Colorado
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position



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.