N.J. Stat. » Title 2A — ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1 (2026)

Findings; definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

a. The Legislature finds that there is an urgent need for remedial legislation to establish clear rules with respect to certain matters relating to actions for damages for harm caused by products, including certain principles under which liability is imposed and the standards and procedures for the award of punitive damages. This act is not intended to codify all issues relating to product liability, but only to deal with matters that require clarification. The Legislature further finds that such sponsors' or committee statements that may be adopted or included in the legislative history of this act shall be consulted in the interpretation and construction of this act.

b. As used in this act:

(1) "Claimant" means any person who brings a product liability action, and if such an action is brought through or on behalf of an estate, the term includes the person's decedent, or if an action is brought through or on behalf of a minor, the term includes the person's parent or guardian.

(2) "Harm" means (a) physical damage to property, other than to the product itself; (b) personal physical illness, injury or death; (c) pain and suffering, mental anguish or emotional harm; and (d) any loss of consortium or services or other loss deriving from any type of harm described in subparagraphs (a) through (c) of this paragraph.

(3) "Product liability action" means any claim or action brought by a claimant for harm caused by a product, irrespective of the theory underlying the claim, except actions for harm caused by breach of an express warranty.

(4) "Environmental tort action" means a civil action seeking damages for harm where the cause of the harm is exposure to toxic chemicals or substances, but does not mean actions involving drugs or products intended for personal consumption or use.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 187 cases (84 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Volin v. Gen. Elec. Co., 189 F. Supp. 3d 411 (D.N.J. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Volin v. Gen. Elec. Co., 189 F. Supp. 3d 411 (D.N.J. 2016). · cites it 7× “§ 2301 ; unjust enrichment; and the New Jersey Products Liability Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-1 et seq. Now before the Court is the motion of Defendant GE to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.”
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). · cites it 4× “” N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1. The JPLA defines “claimant” as “any person who brings a product liability action .”
Francis E. Parker Mem'l Home, Inc. v. Georgia-Pac. LLC, 945 F. Supp. 2d 543 (D.N.J. 2013). · cites it 5× “(hereinafter “Parker”) on behalf of itself and a putative class alleging violations of the New Jersey Products Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1. et seq. (“PLA”); breach of express warranty; and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.”
Mendez v. Shah, 28 F. Supp. 3d 282 (D.N.J. 2014). · cites it 4× “" N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-1(b)(3). Claims for "physical damage .”
In re Accutane Litig., 194 A.3d 503 (N.J. 2018). · cites it 2× “We now address the standard for overcoming the presumption of adequacy of FDA-approved warnings during the postmarketing phase of a prescription medication.”
Naporano Iron & Metal Co. v. Am. Crane Corp., 79 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D.N.J. 2000). · cites it 4× “In Count V, Naporano asserts a negligence claim, charging defendants with breaching their duties of care to Naporano in the assembly, monitoring, and repairing of the Crane.”
Oquendo v. Bettcher Indus., Inc., 939 F. Supp. 357 (D.N.J. 1996). · cites it 6× “See New Jersey Products Liability Act, N.J.S.A. § 2A:58C-1; Tirrell v. Navistar Intern, Inc.”
ARLANDSON v. Hartz Mountain Corp., 792 F. Supp. 2d 691 (D.N.J. 2011). · cites it 2× “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-1(b)(2). Thus, the Third Circuit has determined that the NJPLA “effectively creates an exclusive statutory cause of action for claims falling within its purview.”
McWilliams v. Yamaha Motor Corp. USA, 780 F. Supp. 251 (D.N.J. 1991). · cites it 6× “The legislative history of the Products Liability Law indicates it was intended to establish clear rules with respect to specific matters as to which the decisions of the courts in New Jersey have created uncertainty, while reserving the concept that manufacturers may be held…”
Sullivan v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 575 F. Supp. 2d 640 (D.N.J. 2008). · cites it 2× “Count three alleges failure to warn, pursuant to the New Jersey Products Liability Act (“NJPLA”), N.J.S.A. § 2A:58C-1 to -11. Count ten seeks punitive damages under the common law, the New Jersey Punitive Damages Act (“NJPDA”), N.”
Carlino, S. v. Ethicon, Inc., 208 A.3d 92 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “197, codified at N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1 to -11. The purpose of this act was to codify existing common law and provide "some sense of order and clarity to products liability cases within New Jersey.”
Yarchak v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 208 F. Supp. 2d 470 (D.N.J. 2002). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff argues that the New Jersey Products Liability Law, codified at N.J.S.A. § 2A:58C-1 et. seq., operates to toll the statute of limitations against Defendants Selle Italia and Vetta USA.”
Show all 187 citing cases →
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1(2): 1 case
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “” N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1. The JPLA defines “claimant” as “any person who brings a product liability action .”
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1(a): 13 cases
Kuzian v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 937 F. Supp. 2d 599 (D.N.J. 2013).
Sun Chem. Corp v. Fike Corp, 981 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2020).
Indian Brand Farms v. Novartis Crop Prot., Inc., 890 F. Supp. 2d 534 (D.N.J. 2012).
McWilliams v. Yamaha Motor Corp. USA, 780 F. Supp. 251 (D.N.J. 1991). “The legislative history of the Products Liability Law indicates it was intended to establish clear rules with respect to specific matters as to which the decisions of the courts in New Jersey have created uncertainty, while reserving the concept that manufacturers may be held…”
In Re: Accutane Litig. (mcl Case No. 271, Atl. Cnty. & Statewide) (Consol.), No. A-4760-14T1/A-0164-15T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 25, 2017).
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1(a)(b)(2): 1 case
Martinez v. Safariland, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-12028 (D.N.J. Aug. 22, 2022).
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1(b): 1 case
In Re Metformin Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 2:20-cv-02324 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2022).
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1(b)(1): 3 cases
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “” N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1. The JPLA defines “claimant” as “any person who brings a product liability action .”
Sun Chem. Corp. v. Fike Corp. (082815)(Statewide), No. A-89-18 (N.J. July 29, 2020).
Chris Williams v. Quick Check, No. A-3137-22 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 30, 2024).
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1(b)(2): 17 cases
ARLANDSON v. Hartz Mountain Corp., 792 F. Supp. 2d 691 (D.N.J. 2011). “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-1(b)(2). Thus, the Third Circuit has determined that the NJPLA “effectively creates an exclusive statutory cause of action for claims falling within its purview.”
Mendez v. Shah, 28 F. Supp. 3d 282 (D.N.J. 2014). “" N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-1(b)(3). Claims for "physical damage .”
Carter v. Novartis Consum. Health, Inc., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (C.D. Cal. 2008).
Payne v. Biomet, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-13396 (D.N.J. July 2, 2019).
Zimmerman v. The Home Depot, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-04353 (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2024).
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1(b)(2)(a): 1 case
Sun Chem. Corp. v. Fike Corp. (082815)(Statewide), No. A-89-18 (N.J. July 29, 2020).
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1(b)(2)(b): 1 case
Sun Chem. Corp. v. Fike Corp. (082815)(Statewide), No. A-89-18 (N.J. July 29, 2020).
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1(b)(3): 37 cases
Francis E. Parker Mem'l Home, Inc. v. Georgia-Pac. LLC, 945 F. Supp. 2d 543 (D.N.J. 2013). “(hereinafter “Parker”) on behalf of itself and a putative class alleging violations of the New Jersey Products Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1. et seq. (“PLA”); breach of express warranty; and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.”
Mendez v. Shah, 28 F. Supp. 3d 282 (D.N.J. 2014). “" N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-1(b)(3). Claims for "physical damage .”
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “” N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1. The JPLA defines “claimant” as “any person who brings a product liability action .”
Naporano Iron & Metal Co. v. Am. Crane Corp., 79 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D.N.J. 2000). “In Count V, Naporano asserts a negligence claim, charging defendants with breaching their duties of care to Naporano in the assembly, monitoring, and repairing of the Crane.”
Kemly v. Werner Co., 151 F. Supp. 3d 496 (D.N.J. 2015).
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-1(b)(4): 4 cases
Hughes v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 89 A.3d 179 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2014).
New Jersey Dep't of Env't Prot. v. E.i Dupont De Nemours & Co., No. 1:19-cv-14766 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2021).
New Jersey Dep't of Env't Prot. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., No. 3:19-cv-14767 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2021).
A-0778-11t2 Elbert Hughes v. A.W. Chesterton Co. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2014).
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.