Does the Plantiff Have to Prove Negligence
My question involves an injury that occurred in the state of: AZ
Can someone please correct me if I am wrong. I thought in cases of strict product liability that the plaintiff does not have to prove negligence?
As long as:
-the product was being used for the purpose for which it was intended
-the product was not modified
-the product caused injury
the manufacturer, store, or anyone in the supply chain could be held liable for damages.
Re: My Small Claims Case Was Moved to Civil Court by the Defendant
Strict product liability claims may be had against the seller in Arizona, too. But in order to make that case you still have to prove that the product was indeed defective and unreasonably dangerous.
Re: My Small Claims Case Was Moved to Civil Court by the Defendant
Quote:
Can someone please correct me if I am wrong. I thought in cases of strict product liability that the plaintiff does not have to prove negligence?
As long as:
-the product was being used for the purpose for which it was intended
-the product was not modified
-the product caused injury
the manufacturer, store, or anyone in the supply chain could be held liable for damages.
While that is true, it's overly simplified. You still have to make a prima facie (google it) case that those elements existed and that is further complicated by AZ's product liability statutes 12-681 through 12-689 which you can read at:
https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=12