When an individual is injured by a defective product, they may be entitled to seek compensation under New Jersey product liability law. These claims generally proceed under two different legal theories: strict liability and negligence. While both can result in recovery for the injured party, they differ in important ways. Understanding the distinction helps victims know what must be proven and how liability is assigned.
What Is Strict Liability?
Strict liability means that a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer can be held responsible for injuries caused by a defective product even if they exercised reasonable care during the design, production, or sale. In other words, the focus is on the product itself, not the conduct of the company.
In New Jersey, strict liability applies if the injured party can prove three essential elements:
- The product was defective.
- The defect made the product unreasonably dangerous.
- The defect directly caused the injury.
Defects typically fall into three categories: design defects, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn (marketing defects). For example, a ladder that collapses because of weak materials, a batch of medication contaminated during production, or a cleaning chemical sold without proper warning labels could all create strict liability. The manufacturer’s intentions or precautions do not matter—if the product was defective and caused harm, liability may follow.
What Is Negligence?
Negligence, on the other hand, focuses on the actions or inactions of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller. To succeed in a negligence-based product liability case in New Jersey, the plaintiff must show that the defendant failed to act with reasonable care, and that this failure resulted in injury.
For example, if a manufacturer knew of a defect but failed to correct it, or if a distributor ignored obvious safety warnings and sold the product anyway, these actions may constitute negligence. Unlike strict liability, negligence requires proof of faulty behavior rather than just a defective product.
Key Differences Between Strict Liability and Negligence
- Burden of Proof: In strict liability, the plaintiff does not need to show that the company acted carelessly. In negligence claims, the plaintiff must prove the company failed to exercise reasonable care.
- Focus: Strict liability cases focus on the defect in the product, while negligence cases focus on the conduct of the company.
- Defenses: In negligence cases, defendants may argue they acted reasonably under the circumstances. In strict liability cases, defenses often center on whether the product was actually defective or whether the plaintiff misused it.
Why This Distinction Matters in New Jersey
New Jersey’s Product Liability Act emphasizes consumer protection and allows injured parties to pursue claims under either theory depending on the circumstances. For victims, strict liability is often more straightforward because it removes the need to investigate the manufacturer’s decision-making process. However, negligence may be pursued when there is evidence of careless or reckless behavior, such as failing to test products adequately or ignoring safety regulations.
In many cases, attorneys evaluate both theories to determine which offers the strongest path to recovery. For example, a plaintiff injured by a defective medical device may bring a strict liability claim based on the defect itself while also alleging negligence if the manufacturer ignored known safety issues.
Conclusion
In New Jersey product liability cases, the distinction between strict liability and negligence plays a critical role. Strict liability simplifies the path for injured consumers by focusing on the defect itself, while negligence highlights whether the manufacturer or seller acted without reasonable care. Both legal theories aim to protect consumers and ensure accountability in the marketplace.
If you or a loved one has suffered harm from a defective product, consulting an experienced New Jersey product liability attorney can help determine which legal theory—or combination of both—offers the best chance for full compensation.