The causes of action refer to the different theories of liability. Each theory applies to a different action on the part of the defendant.
The theory of strict liability
When a defendant has been charged with strict liability, the plaintiff does not need to present any evidence of negligence. The evidence that a defect existed has become sufficient grounds for bringing a charge against the defendant. It is hard to mount a defense against a charge that has been based on this particular theory.
The theory of deceptive marketing
In order to win a case that has been based on this theory, the plaintiff needs to show that the maker of the item that was alleged to have a defect knew about the product’s flaw, and tried to conceal it. In the absence of such evidence, the plaintiff would not have a strong case.
Breach of warranty
Injury lawyers in Algonquin know that there are several ways by which a product’s maker might prove guilty of consenting to a breach of warranty. First, the court would have to discover whether the breach concerned an express or implied warranty.
An express warranty is a written document. It could be placed on the product’s label, added to a sheet that is enclosed in the product’s container, or it could be placed on a stand in a store, or on a website. An implied warranty has been applied to the item in question by state law. It refers to the item’s fitness, in view of the consumer’s expectations.
Sometimes an implied warranty is meant to guarantee that a certain sold item has been deemed fit for introduction into the marketplace. When a shopper has discovered a new product on a store’s shelves, the same shopper has assumed that it comes with an implied warranty.
At other times, a given item carries a different sort of implied warranty, one that does not relate to its fitness for introduction into the marketplace. Instead, that alternate type of implied warranty relates to a given item’s fitness for a particular purpose. The seller of something has the ability to ensure the existence of that second type of implied warranty. A smart consumer does not try to use a product in an unfit manner. If an attempt at such incorrect utilization were to harm the item’s user, the injured consumer would have no basis for a defective product liability claim.
However, if a retailer had chosen to deceive the same consumer by giving him or her an unverified guarantee of the item’s fitness for a specific purpose, the consumer would have grounds for a lawsuit. In that instance, the retailer could be charged with having violated one of the 2 types of implied warranties.