Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m (2026)

Product liability actions. Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this section and sections 52-240a, 52-240b, 52-572n to 52-572q, inclusive, and 52-577a:

(a) “Product seller” means any person or entity, including a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor or retailer who is engaged in the business of selling such products whether the sale is for resale or for use or consumption. The term “product seller” also includes lessors or bailors of products who are engaged in the business of leasing or bailment of products.

(b) “Product liability claim” includes all claims or actions brought for personal injury, death or property damage caused by the manufacture, construction, design, formula, preparation, assembly, installation, testing, warnings, instructions, marketing, packaging or labeling of any product. “Product liability claim” shall include, but is not limited to, all actions based on the following theories: Strict liability in tort; negligence; breach of warranty, express or implied; breach of or failure to discharge a duty to warn or instruct, whether negligent or innocent; misrepresentation or nondisclosure, whether negligent or innocent.

(c) “Claimant” means a person asserting a product liability claim for damages incurred by the claimant or one for whom the claimant is acting in a representative capacity.

(d) “Harm” includes damage to property, including the product itself, and personal injuries including wrongful death. As between commercial parties, “harm” does not include commercial loss.

(e) “Manufacturer” includes product sellers who design, assemble, fabricate, construct, process, package or otherwise prepare a product or component part of a product prior to its sale to a user or consumer. It includes a product seller or entity not otherwise a manufacturer that holds itself out as a manufacturer.

(P.A. 79-483, S. 1; 79-631, S. 106, 111; P.A. 82-160, S. 242; P.A. 84-509, S. 1; 84-546, S. 120, 173.)

History: P.A. 79-631 deleted definition of “clear and convincing evidence”, appearing as Subdiv. (f) in original act; P.A. 82-160 deleted incorrect statutory references; P.A. 84-509 amended definition of “harm” to provide that as between commercial parties, “harm” does not include commercial loss; P.A. 84-546 deleted reference to Sec. 38-370o as section to which definitions apply; (Revisor's note: The reference in the opening sentence to Secs. “52-572n to 52-572r” was changed editorially by the Revisors to Secs. “52-572n to 52-572q” to reflect the repeal of Sec. 52-572r by P.A. 93-228, S. 34, 35).

Cited. 187 C. 363; 192 C. 280; 200 C. 562; 203 C. 156; 204 C. 399. Product liability act abrogated common law indemnification principles in this area. 205 C. 694. Cited. 207 C. 575; Id., 599; 210 C. 189; 212 C. 462; Id., 509; 213 C. 136; 216 C. 65. Loss of consortium claim is not barred in action brought pursuant to product liability act, Sec. 52-572m et seq. 226 C. 282. Cited. 229 C. 213; Id., 500; 232 C. 559; 233 C. 732; 236 C. 769; 241 C. 199; 243 C. 168. “Commercial loss” does not encompass costs incurred by a commercial party in repairing or replacing a defective product or in repairing property damage caused by a defective product; “damage to property” is not limited to property owned by the party seeking to recover. 291 C. 224. Modified consumer expectation test, recognized in 241 C. 199, is the primary strict product liability test; ordinary consumer expectation test is reserved for those limited cases in which product fails to meet consumer's legitimate, commonly accepted minimum safety expectations. 321 C. 172.

Cited. 1 CA 48; 3 CA 230; 8 CA 642; 11 CA 391; 16 CA 558; 30 CA 664; 31 CA 824; 36 CA 601; 39 CA 635; 41 CA 555; Id., 856; 46 CA 18; Id., 699. Sidewalk constructed using form and pour method does not constitute a “product” under section. 66 CA 681.

Cited. 36 CS 137; 37 CS 735. Legislative meaning attributed to words “claimant” and “harm” are sufficiently broad to permit an award of punitive damages in connection with a product liability claim involving only damage to property. 39 CS 269. Cause of action alleging that electricity is a product and a large surge of electricity was a defective condition in defendant's product was not improper as a matter of law and doctrine of strict liability is applicable. 40 CS 120. Cited. 41 CS 179; Id., 411; 42 CS 153; 44 CS 510. Discussion of strict tort liability on sellers of used goods; no distinction between sellers of new and used products. 45 CS 531. The two parts of the “actionable harm” test are plaintiff's discovery “that he has been injured” and “that defendant's conduct caused that injury”. 46 CS 235.

Subsec. (a):

Defendant hospital is not a “product seller” under section because it did not actively advertise the medical product for sale to patients and the transaction with the patient was primarily for services, rather than the sale of a medical product. 340 C. 93.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 192 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Gerrity v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 818 A.2d 769 (Conn. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gerrity v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 818 A.2d 769 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 29× “The sole issue in this case, which comes to us upon acceptance of a certified question from the *122 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, 1 is whether a plaintiff, who seeks damages under the Connecticut Product Liability Act, General Statutes § 52-572m…”

Zichichi v. Middlesex Mem'l Hosp., 528 A.2d 805 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 19× “Zichichi, instituted a product liability action against the defendant pursuant to General Statutes § 52-572m et seq. 1 In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that on August 23, 1980, he had been admitted to the defendant hospital for treatment of a ruptured spleen.”

Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 562 A.2d 1100 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 15× “, General Statutes § 52-572Z, which applies to strict tort liability actions pending or brought after June 7, 1977, or General Statutes § 52-572o, which applies to product liability claims as defined in General Statutes § 52-572m and accruing after October 1,1979.”

Lynn v. Haybuster Mfg., Inc., 627 A.2d 1288 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 16× “The sole issue certified 1 to this court is whether, in an action brought pursuant to the Product Liability Act (act); General Statutes § 52-572m et *284 seq.; 2 a claim for loss of consortium by the spouse of an injured party is barred.”

Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc., 152 A.3d 1183 (Conn. 2016). · cites it 12× “I The first certified question asks whether "[§] 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (and [c]omment [i] to that provision) apply to a product liability claim for [negligent design] under [Connecticut's Product Liability Act (act), General Statutes § 52-572m et seq. ]?"…”

Rodia v. Tesco Corp., 527 A.2d 721 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987). · cites it 18× “) General Statutes § 52-572m (b). Flagg concedes that if the plaintiffs’ complaint sounds solely in product liability, it would be precluded from intervening since it is an “employer” under General Statutes § 52-572r (c).”

Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C., 898 A.2d 777 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 13× “(defendant), maker of the pacemaker, pursuant to the Connecticut Product Liability Act, General Statutes § 52-572m et seq., and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.”

Mazurek v. Great Am. Ins., 930 A.2d 682 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 8× “Handy claimed that the plaintiffs claims against it were barred by the Connecticut Product Liability Act, General Statutes § 52-572m et seq. Handy also claimed that a rental company owes no common-law duty to a third party user of equipment that was rented to another party and…”

Truglio v. Hayes Constr. Co., 785 A.2d 1153 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 16× “62,714 -50 (1979), because the legislature, in General Statutes § 52-572m et seq., had not defined the word “product.”

Sylvan R. Shemitz Designs, Inc. v. Newark Corp., 967 A.2d 1188 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 23× “Under General Statutes §§ 52-572m (d) 1 and 52-572n (c) 2 of the Connecticut Product Liability Act (act); see General Statutes § 52-572m et seq.”

Barry v. Quality Steel Prods., Inc., 820 A.2d 258 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 6× “The plaintiffs brought this product liability action 4 *428 pursuant to General Statutes § 52-572m et seq.* *** 5 against Quality Steel alleging that it had designed and manufactured a defective product, namely, roof brackets, which were utilized by the plaintiffs in the hanging…”

Allard v. Liberty Oil Equip. Co., 756 A.2d 237 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 12× “*796 In addition, Boston Steel does not dispute that, if Liberty Oil’s apportionment complaint were based on allegations of negligence by Boston Steel that did not in any way involve Boston Steel’s conduct as a product seller, within the meaning of our statutes governing product…”

Show all 192 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m(a) — 7 cases

Svege v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp., 329 F. Supp. 2d 272 (D. Conn. 2004).

Wilson v. Midway Games, Inc., 198 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D. Conn. 2002).

Altman v. Motion Water Sports, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 2d 234 (D. Conn. 2010).

Mihok v. Medtronic, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 22 (D. Conn. 2015).

Ferrucci v. Atl. City Showboat, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D. Conn. 1999).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m(a)(2001) — 1 case

Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp., 285 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D. Conn. 2003).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m(b) — 31 cases

Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc., 152 A.3d 1183 (Conn. 2016). “I The first certified question asks whether "[§] 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (and [c]omment [i] to that provision) apply to a product liability claim for [negligent design] under [Connecticut's Product Liability Act (act), General Statutes § 52-572m et seq. ]?"…”

Densberger v. United Tech. Corp., 125 F. Supp. 2d 585 (D. Conn. 2000).

Mihok v. Medtronic, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 22 (D. Conn. 2015).

Walters v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 676 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D. Conn. 2009).

Yanise Germain v. Teva Pharm., USA, Inc, 756 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2014).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m(c) — 1 case

Williams v. Hoffman/New Yorker, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 350 (D. Conn. 1996).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m(d) — 9 cases

Mountain West Helicopter, LLC v. Kaman Aerospace Corp., 310 F. Supp. 2d 459 (D. Conn. 2004).

Utica Mut. Ins. v. Denwat Corp., 778 F. Supp. 592 (D. Conn. 1991).

Icelandic Coast Guard v. United Tech. Corp., 722 F. Supp. 942 (D. Conn. 1989).

McKernan v. United Tech. Corp., 717 F. Supp. 60 (D. Conn. 1989).

Williams v. Hoffman/New Yorker, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 350 (D. Conn. 1996).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m(e) — 2 cases

Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp., 285 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D. Conn. 2003).

Doran v. Glaxosmithkline PLC (D. Conn. 2022).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.