(a) A product seller may be subject to liability for harm caused to a claimant who proves by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the product was defective in that adequate warnings or instructions were not provided.
(b) In determining whether instructions or warnings were required and, if required, whether they were adequate, the trier of fact may consider: (1) The likelihood that the product would cause the harm suffered by the claimant; (2) the ability of the product seller to anticipate at the time of manufacture that the expected product user would be aware of the product risk, and the nature of the potential harm; and (3) the technological feasibility and cost of warnings and instructions.
(c) In claims based on this section, the claimant shall prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that if adequate warnings or instructions had been provided, the claimant would not have suffered the harm.
(d) A product seller may not be considered to have provided adequate warnings or instructions unless they were devised to communicate with the person best able to take or recommend precautions against the potential harm.
(P.A. 79-483, S. 6; P.A. 90-191, S. 2.)
History: P.A. 90-191 amended Subsec. (d) to include warnings or instructions devised to communicate with the person best able to “recommend” precautions.
Cited. 187 C. 363; 192 C. 280; 200 C. 562; 203 C. 156; 204 C. 399. Sec. 52-572m et seq., 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; 226 C. 282; 228 C. 905; 229 C. 213; Id., 500; 230 C. 12; 232 C. 915; 233 C. 732; 236 C. 27; Id., 769. Product liability law discussed. 241 C. 199. 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. Cause of action exists under negligence or failure-to-warn provisions of section based on medical device manufacturer's alleged failure to report adverse events to regulator following approval of device, or comply with regulators' postapproval requirements. 342 C. 103.
Cited. 1 CA 48; 3 CA 230; 8 CA 642; 16 CA 558; 30 CA 664; 31 CA 824; 32 CA 373; judgment reversed, see 229 C. 829; 36 CA 601; 39 CA 635; 41 CA 555; Id., 856; 46 CA 18; Id., 699.
Cited. 40 CS 120; 41 CS 179; 42 CS 153; 44 CS 510.
Subsec. (b):
Subdiv. (2) recognizes that a sophisticated buyer may not need same level of warning as an ordinary buyer would. 76 CA 137.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
36
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2022 · leading case:
Sharp v. Wyatt, Inc., 627 A.2d 1347 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993).
Sharp v. Wyatt, Inc., 627 A.2d 1347 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 44× “General Statutes § 52-572q. 2 Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly (1) applied the principles governing summary judgment, (2) determined that under Connecticut law no warnings are required unless the product itself is defective, 3 (3) found that any…”
Vitanza v. Upjohn Co., 778 A.2d 829 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 19× “The plaintiff claims that, even if this court determines that Connecticut recognized the learned intermediary doctrine at common law, under the warnings provision of the act; General Statutes § 52-572q; 12 there are no absolute defenses.”
Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 275 A.3d 168 (Conn. 2022).
· cites it 25× “2d 486 (1980) (‘‘[t]here is no dispute that the seller is under a duty to give adequate warning of unreasonable dangers involved in the use of which he knows, or should know’’ (empha- sis added; internal quotation marks omitted)); see also General Statutes § 52-572q (c) (‘‘the…”
Sharp v. Wyatt, Inc., 644 A.2d 871 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 16× “This appeal concerns the scope of liability under the warnings provision of Connecticut’s product liability statute, General Statutes § 52-572q. 1 The named defendant, Wyatt, Inc.”
Gajewski v. Pavelo, 652 A.2d 509 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 17× “The plaintiffs argue that the trial court’s instructions concerning the manufacturer’s duty to warn under General Statutes § 52-572q 10 were contradictory in that the jury was first instructed to use the statutory standard for a breach of the duty to warn in order to be liable…”
Moss v. Wyeth Inc., 872 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D. Conn. 2012).
· cites it 7× “§ 52-572q. The Connecticut Supreme Court has never explicitly held that the standards for strict liability for a warning defect are entirely equivalent to negligent failure to warn.”
Densberger v. United Tech. Corp., 125 F. Supp. 2d 585 (D. Conn. 2000).
· cites it 13× “” The court recognizes that Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-572q addresses failure to warn claims under the CPLA.”
McConologue v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D. Conn. 2014).
· cites it 6× “The statute provides that a “product seller may be subject to liability for harm caused to a claimant who proves by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the product was defective in that adequate warnings or instructions were not provided.”
Gajewski v. Pavelo, 670 A.2d 318 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 8× “Under General Statutes § 52-572q, 1 a provision of the Connecticut Product Liability Act, a *29 product may be defective solely because a manufacturer or seller has failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions to a claimant who has suffered harm because of the absence of…”
Haesche v. Kissner, 640 A.2d 89 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 3× “See General Statutes § 52-572q. The issue of causation in warnings cases is governed by § 52-572q (c), which states that “the [plaintiff] shall prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that if adequate warnings or instructions had been provided, the [plaintiff] would not…”
Lamontagne v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 834 F. Supp. 576 (D. Conn. 1993).
· cites it 5× “Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-572q(a). That statute further establishes standards for determining whether a product is, in fact, defective due to a defendant’s failure to warn, 60 and whether the defective product caused the plaintiffs injuries.”
Essex Ins. Co. v. William Kramer & Assocs., LLC, 205 A.3d 534 (Conn. 2019).
· cites it 2× “eliance on cases holding that continuing duty to warn arises from inherently dangerous situation or defective product because complaint did not allege inherently dangerous situation or defective product, and telephone jack in that case, even if negligently installed, did not…”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572q(a): 4 cases
Lamontagne v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 834 F. Supp. 576 (D. Conn. 1993).
“Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-572q(a). That statute further establishes standards for determining whether a product is, in fact, defective due to a defendant’s failure to warn, 60 and whether the defective product caused the plaintiffs injuries.”
McConologue v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D. Conn. 2014).
“The statute provides that a “product seller may be subject to liability for harm caused to a claimant who proves by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the product was defective in that adequate warnings or instructions were not provided.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572q(b): 3 cases
McConologue v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D. Conn. 2014).
“The statute provides that a “product seller may be subject to liability for harm caused to a claimant who proves by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the product was defective in that adequate warnings or instructions were not provided.”
Lamontagne v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 834 F. Supp. 576 (D. Conn. 1993).
“Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-572q(a). That statute further establishes standards for determining whether a product is, in fact, defective due to a defendant’s failure to warn, 60 and whether the defective product caused the plaintiffs injuries.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572q(b)(2): 1 case
Densberger v. United Tech. Corp., 125 F. Supp. 2d 585 (D. Conn. 2000).
“” The court recognizes that Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-572q addresses failure to warn claims under the CPLA.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572q(c): 3 cases
Lamontagne v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 834 F. Supp. 576 (D. Conn. 1993).
“Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-572q(a). That statute further establishes standards for determining whether a product is, in fact, defective due to a defendant’s failure to warn, 60 and whether the defective product caused the plaintiffs injuries.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572q(d): 1 case
Densberger v. United Tech. Corp., 125 F. Supp. 2d 585 (D. Conn. 2000).
“” The court recognizes that Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-572q addresses failure to warn claims under the CPLA.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572q(e): 2 cases
McConologue v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D. Conn. 2014).
“The statute provides that a “product seller may be subject to liability for harm caused to a claimant who proves by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the product was defective in that adequate warnings or instructions were not provided.”
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.