Any defect in some aspect of a product that has been sold to consumers could indicate performance of a careless or neglectful action by someone that had a role in the designing, manufacturing or marketing of that same product. And a personal injury lawyer in Brentwood knows that.
How could a designer carry out a careless or neglectful action?
The designer might fail to consider every aspect of the submitted design.
The designer might fail to imagine how the considered design could pose a problem for certain men and women
—Those that are left-handed
—Those that are especially short
—Those that are exceedingly fat
—Those consumers with a height that exceeds that of other adults of the same age.
How could a manufacturing plant be guilty of negligence?
The supervisors might have failed to catch an instance when some employee forgot to add a required part. One employee’s failure to install a given component correctly could have gone unnoticed, during its inspection by those in Quality Control.
The plant’s training program might have been inadequate, thus depriving one employee of all the skills required for installation of a given component.
The employees may not have received all of the necessary parts, and thus, could not do their job properly.
How could a marketing department be guilty of negligence?
It might have failed to include a required warning on the product’s label or within the printed instructions.
It might have issued a set of unclear directions, so that consumers lacked the ability to use the product in a safe manner.
It might have created a label that confused the consumer, because it did not list all of the product’s ingredients, or because it featured some words or phrases with a dubious meaning.
How could a consumer learn about the existence of such a defect?
Any defects that cause some car part to pose a danger to consumers should trigger issuance of a recall. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has established that practice.
How could someone prove that a defective product had caused an accident, one that had involved that same individual’s car?
A plaintiff must show that no other object, such as a sign or traffic signal, and no event could have caused the accident-in-question.
A plaintiff would need to show that the defect had existed in the affected car at the time when that same vehicle rolled out of the manufacturing plant.
A plaintiff would need to identify the stage in the product’s creation at which the identified defect had managed to become a permanent and significant feature.
That last requirement tends to pose the greatest challenge to anyone that hopes to link a defective car part to the identified causes for a given accident.
