Failures to Warn in Product Liability- Nevada’s Law

Product Liability Lawyer

Product Liability Lawyer

According to the Nevada Jury Instruction 7.4,” A product, though faultlessly made, is defective when not accompanied by suitable and adequate warnings concerning its safe and proper use if the defendant has reason to anticipate that a particular use of the product may be dangerous without such warnings.”  These cases pinpoint flaws and errors in a product’s design that can create danger to its consumers. Products that are the same as a particular defective product are deemed defective as well. All parties within the chain of distribution may be found at fault. These aspects are applied through most states, in which their laws may vary slightly, through the Uniform Commercial Code, containing warranty rules which affect product liability. There are instances in which manufacturers do not have to warn the dangers of the product hat a reasonable user would anticipate; however, they are legally required to place a clear and complete warning on their products that may not be instantly apparent to the average consumer.

Failure to warn is enacted regardless of whether the company or business had acted negligently. These cases persistently require the argument to see if the pain that the plaintiff suffered was obvious or if it was an action that formulated through an unanticipated sequence of events. Warnings must be visible in a way that the user would undisputedly be able to see the label, rather than have the warning hidden in a way that does not grasp the attention of the user. The defendant is under a duty to have a complete understanding of all the conceptual knowledge of the product. Discovering during the research and investigation stages of the product deem that the defendant will be held liable for failing to warn about a risk that they should have known.

What Plaintiff Would Have to Prove

Plaintiff, to have to prove a defect case, would have to propose a foreseeable risk of danger to a consumer using it for its intended purpose. In some jurisdictions, plaintiff must also display that the manufacturer was able to adopt a possible alternative design that can be used reasonably for its primary function. Through this avenue, the plaintiff would have to show that an alternative would suffice in a practical and economic standpoint, demonstrating that the product is not contrary to its function. 

A warning in a product must be designed so it can reasonably be expected to catch the attention of the consumer, be comprehensible and give a fair indication of the specific risks involved with the product and must be of an intensity justified by the magnitude of the risk. The plaintiff must sue based on negligence or strict liability. The negligence cause of action alleges that the producer of the product knew, or should have known, the associated risks with the product. If the plaintiff can show that an alternative design would not have sufficiently reduced profits in a dramatic fashion. Strict liability cause of action alleges that the creator of the product had placed a defective product that is portrayed as an unreasonable risk of danger into the economic sphere. 

If you are in need of a Product Liability Lawyer at The Law Office of Eglet Adams call for answers to your questions and help with your case.