The consumer safety law in Indiana is a strict liability law, as it
pertains to manufacturers of the entire product, or part of the product. Thus,
sellers are not held strictly liable "unless the seller is a manufacturer of the
product or of the part of the product alleged to be defective." IC 34-20-2-3
The theory of strict liability is based on the Restatement of Torts, 2d, Section
402(A). However,
[i]f a court is unable to hold jurisdiction over a particular
manufacturer of a product or part of a product alleged to be defective, then that
manufacturer's principal distributor or seller over whom a court may hold jurisdiction
shall be considered, for the purposes of this chapter, the manufacturer of the product.
IC 34-20-2-4. Therefore, where the manufacturer cannot be
brought into court under the doctrine of strict liability, the seller may be sued in his
place. Thus, the supplier of a product is liable, in a strict liability sense, for
that product only when the manufacturer cannot be sued within Indiana.
Otherwise,
a person who sells, leases, or otherwise puts into the stream
of commerce any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to any user or
consumer or to the user's or consumer's property is subject to liability for physical harm
caused by that product to the user or consumer or to the user's or consumer's property if:
- that user or consumer is in the class of persons that the
seller should reasonably foresee as being subject to the harm caused by the defective
condition;
- the seller is engaged in the business of selling the product;
and
- the product is expected to and does reach the user or consumer
without substantial alteration in the condition in which the product is sold by the person
sought to be held liable under this article.
IC 34-20-2-1. The term 'class of persons' can refer to
people who are not the buyer, but are people whom the seller should foresee would use the
product. For the purposes of this act, the term 'intended use' includes any
reasonably foreseeable use, or misuse, of a product.
The law of strict product liability applies to all people who engage
in the manufacturing of the product, and extends to the providing of all necessary
warnings and instructions necessary to inform the consumer of the possible risks and
inherent limitations of the product. The absence of such warnings or instructions
may be considered a defect, in addition to manufacturing defects. However, liability
in Indiana only extends to those who have a part in the manufacturing of the component
that created the defect and causes the injury.
In a product liability action where liability is assessed
against more than one (1) defendant, a defendant is not liable for more than the amount of
fault, as determined under IC 34-20-8, directly attributable to that defendant. A
defendant in a product liability action may not be held jointly liable for damages
attributable to the fault of another defendant.
IC 34-20-7-1. Therefore, if three manufacturers take part
in the manufacturing process, only those manufacturers which take part in manufacturing
the component causing the injury are held liable for the injury. Thus, if two
manufacturers create the injury causing defect, the third manufacturer is not liable for
the injury. It is important to note that strict liability can only be assessed for
personal injury or property damage. However, a suit based upon strict liability
cannot be brought for damages to the defective product itself.
The law of strict product liability concentrates on the safety of
the product, without concern for the actions of the supplier. The reasonableness of
the supplier's conduct is not at issue, just whether the nature of the defective and
whether the defect caused the injury. Thus, the supplier may be liable for harm
caused by its defective product even where it has exercised all possible care in the
preparation and sale of its product.
There are few defenses to strict liability suits. One defense
to strict liability is assumption of the risk, where the manufacturer can show that the
consumer voluntarily used the product even though being aware of the defect and having an
appreciation of the danger posed by the defect. Another defense is the substantial
alteration of the product, after leaving the control of the manufacturer, which created
the defective condition. Note that this defense is not available where:
- the alteration was reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer; or
- the injury would have been sustained even if the alteration had not
occurred.
Other factors, such as industry custom and standards or compliance
with government regulations are not relevant in a suit based upon strict liability.
In addition, the negligence or conduct of the injured person are inadmissible in a claim
based on strict product liability.
In Indiana, the statute of limitations requires that actions based
upon product liability:
. . . must be commenced:
- within two (2) years after the cause of action accrues; or
- within ten (10) years after the delivery of the product to the
initial user or consumer.
However, if the cause of action accrues at least eight (8)
years but less than ten (10) years after that initial delivery, the action may be
commenced at any time within two (2) years after the cause of action accrues.
IC 34-20-3-1(b)(1)-(2). There are exceptions to this rule
based upon actions formed due to asbestos exposure. If you feel that you have been
injured by a defective product, please talk with an attorney and make sure to preserve
your rights within the time limits of such actions.
If you would like to talk with an attorney now, please choose here.
If you would like to read Indiana's product liability statute,
choose here. The federal counterpart can be
read by choose here.
