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 1270 (1993).
Requires product liability cases to be based on a design, manufacturing or warning defect, or breach of an express warranty, which caused the product ...
Mississippi
Product Liability Reform: Venue Reform: HB 4508 (1995)

Provides venue control in product liability cases.

Michigan
Product Liability Reform: SB 344 (1995)
Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in product liability cases.  Provides statutory defenses to product liability claims, incl...
Michigan
Product Liability Reform: LD 346 (1996).
Provides that “subsequent remedial measures” or steps taken after an accident to repair or improve the site of injury are not admissible as evidence o...
Maine
Product Liability Reform: SB 684 (1988).
Provides that a product may be unreasonably dangerous only because of one or more of the following characteristics: (a) defective construction or comp...
Louisiana
Product Liability Reform: HB 1741 (1995).
Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in product liability cases.  Provides a rebuttable presumption that a product is not defec...
Indiana
Product Liability Reform: HB 20 (1995).
Establishes affidavit requirements in product liability cases.  Creates a presumption of safety, where manufacturers meet state and federal standards,...
Illinois
Product Liability Reform- Statute of Repose: HF 693 (1997)
Establishes a 15‑year statute of repose for product liability lawsuits not involving fraud, concealment, latent diseases caused by harmful materials, ...
Iowa
Product Liability Reform: HB 775 (1999)
Establishes a 12-year statute of repose for products with a useful life of 10 years or less, unless the product is specifically warranted a useful lif...
Florida
Product Liability Reform: SB 231 (2003).
Provides that a product liability action cannot be taken against a manufacturer or seller of a product if the product was used in a manner other than ...
Colorado


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
Legal Services Advertising in the United States – 2020-2024
In 2024, it is estimated that more than $2.5 billion were spent on more than 26.9 million ads across all analyzed mediums for legal services or solici...
Smith Jr. v. Terumo BCT, Inc.
(Co. App., filed March 3, 2025): Arguing that traditional tort-law principles preclude medical monitoring as a claim or remedy without present physica...
Colorado
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos
(U.S., filed December 4, 2024): Arguing that foreseeability is not a substitute for proximate causation. The petition is emblematic of numerous lawsui...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Gilead Tenofovir Cases, Gilead Sciences v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco
(Ca., filed November 4, 2024): Arguing that the novel duty to innovate recognized by the Court of Appeal would flood the judiciary and burden manufact...
California
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Moheball v. Hayes
(N.C. App., filed October 7, 2024): Arguing that statutory limits on noneconomic damages respond to a rise in pain and suffering awards and their unpr...
North Carolina
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Piasa Armory, LLC. v. Raoul
(Il., filed October 7, 2024): Arguing against the elimination of the state’s intrastate forum non conveniens doctrine. Intrastate forum non conveniens...
Illinois
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Sommerville v. Union Carbide Corp.
(4th Circ., filed September 30, 2024): Arguing that Article III standing is a threshold requirement for all claims in federal court.  Medical-monitori...
4th Circuit
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Gardner v. Norman
(UT., filed August 23, 2024): Arguing that chargemaster rates and other list prices set by healthcare providers, but rarely paid and not actually rece...
Utah
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability and Nevada Justice Association vs. Uber Technologies, Inc.
(Nv., filed August 8, 2024): Arguing that judicial review of ballot initiative petitions is limited to the requirements of NRS 295.009 and Article 19 ...
Nevada
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
The Key School Inc. v. Bunker; Board of Education of Hartford County v. John Doe
(Md., filed August 7, 2024): Arguing that reviving time-barred claims undermines Maryland’s civil justice system and creates turmoil for busines...
Maryland
  • 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.