Wisconsin product liability law allows people injured by defective products to recover from the manufacturer, distributor, or seller of the product without proving that any of those parties was negligent in the traditional sense. Wisconsin’s strict products liability doctrine, developed through case law and codified in part through Wis. Stat. Section 895.047, imposes liability on sellers in the business of selling products when a product defect makes it unreasonably dangerous and that defect causes injury. The defect can be a manufacturing defect where the specific product departed from its intended design, a design defect where the entire product line was designed in a way that made it unreasonably dangerous, or a failure to warn defect where adequate instructions or warnings were not provided. Each category of defect requires different evidence and different expert analysis to establish.
A defective products lawyer in Wisconsin who handles product liability cases understands which defect theory applies to the specific product and injury, what expert testimony is required to establish each theory, and how Wisconsin’s comparative fault framework applies when the injured person’s own conduct contributed to the injury alongside the product defect.
Manufacturing Defects and How They Are Proven
A manufacturing defect claim asserts that the specific product that injured the plaintiff departed from its intended design at some point in the manufacturing process. The evidence for a manufacturing defect comes from the product itself, from the manufacturing records, and from expert analysis of what the product’s condition at the time of the injury reveals about what happened during its production. The product must typically be preserved immediately after the injury and inspected by a qualified expert before any repairs or modifications are made, because the product’s condition at the time of the injury is the primary physical evidence.
Design Defect Claims and the Risk-Utility Test
A design defect claim asserts that the entire product line was designed in a way that made it unreasonably dangerous, measured in Wisconsin by the risk-utility test: whether the risks of the design outweigh its utility given the availability of a reasonable alternative design that would have reduced or eliminated the risk without substantially impairing the product’s usefulness. Design defect claims require expert engineering testimony about the product’s design, the alternative designs that were available, and the feasibility of implementing those alternatives without compromising the product’s function.
Wisconsin’s Comparative Fault in Product Cases
Wisconsin’s 51 percent modified comparative fault bar applies to product liability cases exactly as it applies to other personal injury claims. A plaintiff whose misuse of the product contributed to their injury faces a fault attribution argument that, if it reaches 51 percent, eliminates the entire recovery. The Wisconsin Statutes Section 895.047 on product liability sets out the complete statutory framework for product liability claims in Wisconsin, including the defect categories, the risk-utility standard, and the applicable comparative fault provisions.
