What are the 7 defenses to product liability?
In product liability cases, defendants can use seven common defenses to reduce or eliminate liability: comparative negligence, assumption of risk, product misuse, lack of causation, statute of limitations, state of the art, and government contractor defense. Knowing these helps businesses protect themselves legally and financially.
Key Points
Comparative negligence reduces defendant’s liability by the plaintiff’s share of fault.
Assumption of risk claims the injured party knowingly accepted the product’s danger.
Product misuse argues the injury came from improper use outside intended or foreseeable use.
Lack of causation says defect did not directly cause harm.
Statute of limitations requires the claim be filed within legal time limits.
State of the art defense shows product met industry knowledge and tech standards at time of manufacture.
Government contractor defense applies if manufacturing was done per government specs.
Product liability law aims to hold defective products accountable, but courts also recognize that sometimes liability isn’t fair or justified for defendants. These seven defenses provide legal arguments businesses can use when facing allegations of defects or harm. Each comes with conditions and limits, and success depends on the specific facts and jurisdiction.
The Seven Defenses Explained
1. Comparative Negligence
When the plaintiff’s own actions contributed to their injury, comparative negligence lets liability be shared. For instance, if a user ignored clear warnings or misused the product, they may bear part of responsibility. In many places, the compensation awarded is reduced accordingly (e.g. plaintiff found 30% responsible → recovery cut by 30%).
2. Assumption of Risk
This defense requires proving the injured person knew of a risk and voluntarily accepted it. If warnings were given and the risk was obvious, the claimant may be barred from recovery. For example, a manufacturer includes a clear warning label about hot surfaces; someone still touches it despite label and gets burned—that may trigger this defense.
3. Product Misuse
Product misuse means the user employed the product in a way not intended or foreseeable. If misuse was completely unforeseeable, the manufacturer may not be liable. But many courts expect producers to anticipate reasonable misuse and provide warnings accordingly.
4. Lack of Causation
Even a defective product isn’t enough: there must be a direct causal link between the defect and the injury. If the plaintiff cannot show that the defect caused their harm—maybe because intervening actions broke the chain of causation—this defense can succeed.
5. Statute of Limitations
Each jurisdiction imposes time limits (often two to four years) for filing a product liability lawsuit. If a plaintiff files too late (after the time allowed from discovery of injury or defect), the court may dismiss the case regardless of merit.
6. State of the Art Defense
This argument says the product complied with the best available knowledge, technology, and industry standards at the time it was produced—even if later safety improvements emerged. If so, the defendant may not be liable for defects that were not reasonably avoidable given that time’s scientific or technical limitations.
7. Government Contractor Defense
When a business manufactures a product per strict government specifications (design, materials, performance standards), this defense can protect the manufacturer from liability—provided they adhered precisely to those governmental requirements and didn’t deviate.
Real-World Scenarios
A user is injured using a power tool but ignored multiple warning labels. Defendant successfully raises assumption of risk.
A defect occurs in a medical device, but investigation shows it met all industry standards at manufacture time—state of the art defense is successful.
A component manufacturer builds parts to government contract specs—government contractor defense may protect them.
Product used incorrectly (e.g. using toy on adults for non-intended use) triggers product misuse defense.
How to Use These Defenses Properly
Maintain clear warnings and user manuals so assumption of risk or product misuse arguments are credible.
Document compliance with industry standards and scientific knowledge to support state of the art defense.
Keep detailed records of manufacturing, testing, and quality control for causation and comparative negligence issues.
Monitor statutory deadlines and ensure legal counsel files claims or defenses on time.
When supplying to government, document and follow specs strictly to enable government contractor defense.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a plaintiff recover anything if comparative negligence applies?
Yes—they recover a reduced amount based on how much their own negligence contributed.
Is assumption of risk always successful if there is a warning label?
Not always—court will consider whether the warning was clear, visible, and whether risk was truly known and accepted.
Does misuse always absolve the manufacturer?
Only if misuse was unforeseeable, or sufficiently warned against. Foreseeable misuse must be addressed in warnings to avoid liability.
What is the usual time limit under statute of limitations?
Typically 2–4 years from injury or discovery of defect, but depends entirely on jurisdiction.
Is “state of the art” defense common?
It’s less common but meaningful in industries with rapid technological advancements. Documentation is key.
Reducing liability risk requires understanding these defenses and integrating them into product development, documentation, warnings, and insurance coverage. Businesses that plan ahead can navigate claims more confidently.
Fill out the form below to get personalized product liability insurance quotes that include coverage for defects and the ability to defend against these seven key defenses. Protect your business from financial exposure today.