a. In any product liability action against a manufacturer or seller for harm allegedly caused by a product that was designed in a defective manner, the manufacturer or seller shall not be liable if:
(1) At the time the product left the control of the manufacturer, there was not a practical and technically feasible alternative design that would have prevented the harm without substantially impairing the reasonably anticipated or intended function of the product; or
(2) The characteristics of the product are known to the ordinary consumer or user, and the harm was caused by an unsafe aspect of the product that is an inherent characteristic of the product and that would be recognized by the ordinary person who uses or consumes the product with the ordinary knowledge common to the class of persons for whom the product is intended, except that this paragraph shall not apply to industrial machinery or other equipment used in the workplace and it is not intended to apply to dangers posed by products such as machinery or equipment that can feasibly be eliminated without impairing the usefulness of the product; or
(3) The harm was caused by an unavoidably unsafe aspect of the product and the product was accompanied by an adequate warning or instruction as defined in section 4 of this act.
b. The provisions of paragraph (1) of subsection a. of this section shall not apply if the court, on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, makes all of the following determinations:
(1) The product is egregiously unsafe or ultra-hazardous;
(2) The ordinary user or consumer of the product cannot reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the product's risks, or the product poses a risk of serious injury to persons other than the user or consumer; and
(3) The product has little or no usefulness.
c. No provision of subsection a. of this section is intended to establish any rule, or alter any existing rule, with respect to the burden of proof.
Notes of Decisions
Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 1487 (D.N.J. 1988).
· cites it 5× “” N.J.S.A. § 2A:58C-3(a). Therefore, the defense set forth in Section 3(a)(2) is not available to Liggett as against plaintiff’s failure to warn claims — claims considered by the statute to be distinct from plaintiff’s design defect claim.”
Griesenbeck v. Am. Tobacco Co., 897 F. Supp. 815 (D.N.J. 1995).
· cites it 4× “Defendant, on the other hand, asserts that the well-known and inherent nature of cigarettes to burn satisfies the requirements of the “consumer expectation” affirmative defense under N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-3(a)(2). The Act provides two affirmative defenses to design defect claims, the…”
Lewis v. CRC Indus., Inc., 7 A.3d 841 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 6× “2A:58C-3(a)(2), a product manufacturer may defend against design defect claims by showing: The characteristics of the product are known to the ordinary consumer or user, and the harm was caused by an unsafe aspect of the product that is an inherent characteristic of the product…”
Straley v. United States, 887 F. Supp. 728 (D.N.J. 1995).
· cites it 5× “The defense is set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-3(a), which provides, In any product liability action against a manufacturer or seller for harm allegedly caused by a product that was designed in a defective manner, the manufacturer or seller shall not be liable if: .”
Est. of Edward W. Knoster v. Ford Motor Co., 200 F. App'x 106 (3d Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-3(a)(1). Nonetheless, “the statute does not alter the plaintiff’s burden to show defendant’s failure to follow a reasonable alternative design.”
Carlino, S. v. Ethicon, Inc., 208 A.3d 92 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
“at 1271 (citing N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-3(a)(1) ("A manufacturer may not be held liable in a design-defect product liability action "if .”
Quincy Mut. Fire Ins. v. Scripto USA, 573 F. Supp. 2d 875 (D.N.J. 2008).
· cites it 3× “…product and the product was accompanied by an adequate warning or instruction as defined in section 4 of this act. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-3.”
Milanowicz v. Raymond Corp., 148 F. Supp. 2d 525 (D.N.J. 2001).
“2d 298, 303 (1983) (articulating the rationale to “prevent! ] the manufacturer from also becoming the insurer of a product”), superseded in part by N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-3, as recognized inDewey v.”
Norwood v. Raytheon Co., 237 F.R.D. 581 (W.D. Tex. 2006).
“, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-3(a) (2000) ("In any product liability action [for design defects] .”
Mandile v. Clark Material Handling Co., 131 F. App'x 836 (3d Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “The New Jersey statute regarding manufacturers’ duty to warn, see N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-4, 6 unlike the New Jersey statute pertaining to design defects, see N.”
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-3(a): 3 cases
Straley v. United States, 887 F. Supp. 728 (D.N.J. 1995).
“The defense is set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-3(a), which provides, In any product liability action against a manufacturer or seller for harm allegedly caused by a product that was designed in a defective manner, the manufacturer or seller shall not be liable if: .”
Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 1487 (D.N.J. 1988).
“” N.J.S.A. § 2A:58C-3(a). Therefore, the defense set forth in Section 3(a)(2) is not available to Liggett as against plaintiff’s failure to warn claims — claims considered by the statute to be distinct from plaintiff’s design defect claim.”
Norwood v. Raytheon Co., 237 F.R.D. 581 (W.D. Tex. 2006).
“, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-3(a) (2000) ("In any product liability action [for design defects] .”
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-3(a)(1): 8 cases
Carlino, S. v. Ethicon, Inc., 208 A.3d 92 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
“at 1271 (citing N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-3(a)(1) ("A manufacturer may not be held liable in a design-defect product liability action "if .”
Est. of Edward W. Knoster v. Ford Motor Co., 200 F. App'x 106 (3d Cir. 2006).
“N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-3(a)(1). Nonetheless, “the statute does not alter the plaintiff’s burden to show defendant’s failure to follow a reasonable alternative design.”
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-3(a)(2): 12 cases
Griesenbeck v. Am. Tobacco Co., 897 F. Supp. 815 (D.N.J. 1995).
“Defendant, on the other hand, asserts that the well-known and inherent nature of cigarettes to burn satisfies the requirements of the “consumer expectation” affirmative defense under N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-3(a)(2). The Act provides two affirmative defenses to design defect claims, the…”
Lewis v. CRC Indus., Inc., 7 A.3d 841 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
“2A:58C-3(a)(2), a product manufacturer may defend against design defect claims by showing: The characteristics of the product are known to the ordinary consumer or user, and the harm was caused by an unsafe aspect of the product that is an inherent characteristic of the product…”
Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 1487 (D.N.J. 1988).
“” N.J.S.A. § 2A:58C-3(a). Therefore, the defense set forth in Section 3(a)(2) is not available to Liggett as against plaintiff’s failure to warn claims — claims considered by the statute to be distinct from plaintiff’s design defect claim.”
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-3(a)(3): 2 cases
N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-3(a)(l): 3 cases
Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 1487 (D.N.J. 1988).
“” N.J.S.A. § 2A:58C-3(a). Therefore, the defense set forth in Section 3(a)(2) is not available to Liggett as against plaintiff’s failure to warn claims — claims considered by the statute to be distinct from plaintiff’s design defect claim.”
Est. of Edward W. Knoster v. Ford Motor Co., 200 F. App'x 106 (3d Cir. 2006).
“N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-3(a)(1). Nonetheless, “the statute does not alter the plaintiff’s burden to show defendant’s failure to follow a reasonable alternative design.”
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.