[gt-link lang="es" label="Se Habla Español" widget_look="lang_names"]
[gt-link lang="en" label="English" widget_look="lang_names"]
Written by Kigan Martineau, Managing Attorney at BAM Injury Law.
If a defective product injured you or a family member in Utah, the law does not require you to prove that anyone was careless. Under Utah Code Section 78B-6-702, a manufacturer or seller is strictly liable when its product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user and that condition caused the injury. Strict liability shifts the burden: you must show the product was defective when it left the manufacturer's control, not that the manufacturer acted negligently. This standard makes product liability claims more accessible to injured consumers than traditional negligence cases.
Utah adopted strict product liability law following the Restatement Second of Torts, Section 402A, and the framework has been further refined by reference to the Restatement Third of Torts: Products Liability. Utah Code Section 78B-6-702 establishes the core rule: a product seller is liable for damages if the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous when it left the seller's control and the defect caused physical harm to a person or property.
The strict liability standard serves an important policy purpose. Product manufacturers are in the best position to test their products, identify design weaknesses, and warn consumers about known risks. Placing liability on those who put defective products into the stream of commerce creates strong incentives for safety and quality control. The injured consumer does not need to hire an expert to prove that an engineer in the design department made a poor decision. The injured consumer needs to show that the product was defective and that the defect caused the harm.
This matters in practice because negligence claims require showing that the defendant departed from a reasonable standard of care. Strict liability asks only whether the product was defective. A manufacturer can exercise every reasonable precaution and still be liable if the product that reaches the consumer is unreasonably dangerous. For injured victims, this distinction can be the difference between a viable claim and an unwinnable one.
Learn more about how product liability fits into the broader landscape of BAM Injury Law's practice areas, and see how Utah personal injury case values are calculated to get a sense of what your claim may be worth.
Utah product liability law recognizes three distinct theories of defect, each of which can support a strict liability claim. Understanding which theory applies to your case affects the evidence you need and the defendants you should name.
| Defect Type | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturing Defect | The specific product deviated from the intended design during production. | A faulty weld on a vehicle suspension component that causes the part to fracture under normal driving conditions. |
| Design Defect | The entire product line is unreasonably dangerous because of how it was designed, even when built exactly as intended. | An SUV with a suspension geometry that makes the vehicle prone to rollover during foreseeable highway maneuvers. |
| Failure to Warn (Marketing Defect) | The product carries known risks that were not disclosed through adequate instructions or warnings. | A prescription medication sold without warnings about a known drug interaction that can cause cardiac events. |
Manufacturing defects are the most straightforward to prove because the plaintiff can point to a single unit that departed from the manufacturer's own specifications. Design defect claims are broader and more complex because they challenge the fundamental engineering choices that apply to every unit in the product line. The risk-utility test is commonly applied: was the foreseeable risk of harm from the design outweighed by the utility of the product as designed, considering whether a reasonable alternative design existed?
Failure-to-warn claims arise when a product is safe for its intended use but dangerous in ways the manufacturer knew about and failed to disclose. Drug manufacturers, chemical companies, and industrial equipment makers face these claims frequently. A warning that exists but is buried in fine print, written in technical language unsuitable for a typical consumer, or absent from the product altogether can each support a failure-to-warn theory.
In many serious injury cases, more than one defect theory applies. A pharmaceutical drug may have both a design defect and inadequate warnings. An industrial machine may have a manufacturing defect that compounds a design flaw. A thorough investigation by a product liability attorney often identifies multiple viable theories that strengthen your claim and make it harder for defense counsel to knock out your entire case on summary judgment.
Utah product liability law extends strict liability throughout the chain of distribution. The original manufacturer is the primary target in most cases, but every commercial seller who profited from placing the product into commerce can share responsibility. This matters when the manufacturer is insolvent, located in a foreign country, or otherwise difficult to reach in litigation.
Potential defendants in a Utah product liability case include the original product manufacturer, component part manufacturers whose defective parts were incorporated into a larger product, distributors and wholesalers who moved the product through the supply chain, and retailers who sold the product directly to consumers. Each link in the chain had an opportunity to inspect the product and decline to sell a dangerous item.
In auto defect cases, this often means the vehicle manufacturer, the supplier of the specific defective component (such as an airbag inflator or a tire manufacturer), and the dealership that sold the vehicle. In medical device cases, the device manufacturer, the distributor that sold the device to the hospital, and sometimes the hospital itself if it modified or improperly maintained the device can all be named defendants.
The crashworthiness doctrine, recognized in Utah case law, holds that vehicle manufacturers must design their vehicles to protect occupants in foreseeable crashes. A vehicle that is not defective in causing an accident can still be defective if its structural design enhanced the severity of injuries that were foreseeable in a collision. Rollover roof crush cases, door latch failures, and fuel system fire cases frequently rely on this doctrine.
Identifying all liable parties requires examining contracts, component sourcing records, distribution agreements, and engineering documents. Managing Attorney Kigan Martineau works with product liability experts and forensic engineers to trace the defect through the supply chain and identify every party whose conduct contributed to the injury.
Utah law imposes two separate time limits on product liability claims: a statute of limitations and a statute of repose. Missing either deadline can permanently bar your claim regardless of its merit, so understanding both is critical.
The statute of limitations is two years under Utah Code Section 78B-2-302. The two-year period begins running from the date of injury or, under the discovery rule, from the date the plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered both the injury and its connection to the defective product. In cases involving latent medical device failures or pharmaceutical side effects that develop gradually, the discovery rule can extend the filing deadline significantly beyond the initial injury date.
The statute of repose is ten years under Utah Code Section 78B-6-706. A product liability claim must be brought within ten years of the date the product was first sold, even if the injury occurred later and was discovered later. The statute of repose is a hard cutoff that operates independently of the discovery rule. If you were injured by a product that was sold more than ten years before your injury, your claim may be barred unless an exception applies.
Both deadlines apply simultaneously. The rule is that you must file within two years of discovering your injury and its cause, but no later than ten years from the date of sale. Identifying which deadline controls your case and calculating the exact expiration date requires careful legal analysis. Do not assume you have time. Contact BAM Injury Law as soon as possible after a product-related injury to preserve your rights.
Utah follows a modified comparative fault system under Utah Code Section 78B-5-818. A plaintiff's own negligence reduces the amount of damages recoverable by the percentage of fault attributed to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is found more than 50 percent at fault, the plaintiff is barred from recovery entirely.
In product liability cases, defendants frequently raise comparative fault arguments to reduce their exposure. Common arguments include that the plaintiff misused the product, ignored warning labels, removed safety guards, or failed to maintain the product properly. The effectiveness of these arguments depends on whether the claimed misuse was foreseeable. Manufacturers are required to design products that are safe for foreseeable misuses, not just perfectly intended use. A court applying Utah comparative fault principles in a product liability case will assess how foreseeable the plaintiff's conduct was and apportion fault accordingly.
Comparative fault in product cases also interacts with strict liability doctrine in nuanced ways. A plaintiff who was wearing a seatbelt but was still severely injured by a deploying airbag has a strong argument that comparative fault does not apply because the plaintiff was using the product correctly. Conversely, a plaintiff who removed a machine guard and was then injured by the unguarded machinery faces a meaningful comparative fault reduction.
The Utah settlement value library offers context for how comparative fault typically affects recovery in different injury categories. An experienced product liability attorney evaluates the comparative fault exposure early and structures the case theory to minimize the apportionment to the plaintiff.
Product liability cases are fact-intensive and require specialized expert testimony. The steps below outline what you and your attorney must accomplish to build a viable claim under Utah law. Taking these steps quickly is important because physical evidence degrades, memories fade, and products can be repaired or destroyed.
See how attorney representation increases recovery in product cases and how BAM Injury Law handles the entire process on a contingency basis so you pay nothing upfront. Review the typical timeline for a Utah personal injury case so you know what to expect from start to finish.
What does strict liability mean in a Utah product case?
Strict liability means the plaintiff does not need to prove that the manufacturer was careless or acted unreasonably. The plaintiff must show that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer's control, that the defect made it unreasonably dangerous, and that the defect caused the injury. The manufacturer's level of care in designing or making the product is not a defense to strict liability under Utah Code Section 78B-6-702.
What is the difference between a manufacturing defect and a design defect?
A manufacturing defect is a flaw in a specific unit that caused it to deviate from the manufacturer's own intended specifications. Only that particular product is defective. A design defect means the entire product line is unreasonably dangerous because the design itself is flawed. Every unit made to that design shares the defect. Design defect claims are typically broader and more complex because they challenge fundamental engineering decisions that affect all products made from that blueprint.
What is the statute of repose for Utah product liability claims?
Utah Code Section 78B-6-706 bars product liability claims brought more than ten years after the date the product was first sold. This is a hard cutoff that applies even if the injury occurred later and was only recently discovered. The two-year statute of limitations under Utah Code Section 78B-2-302 and the ten-year statute of repose operate together: you must file within two years of discovery and within ten years of the original sale date.
Does a product recall mean the manufacturer admits the product is defective?
Not automatically. A recall is a regulatory action taken under pressure from the Consumer Product Safety Commission or National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and manufacturers often dispute the scope or cause of a defect even while conducting a recall. However, a recall is strong evidence that the manufacturer was aware of a potential safety problem. In a product liability lawsuit, evidence of a recall is often admissible and can support your claim that the product was in a defective condition when it was sold to you.
If I was partially at fault for my injury, can I still recover?
Yes, as long as your comparative fault does not exceed 50 percent under Utah Code Section 78B-5-818. Utah's modified comparative fault system reduces your recovery by your percentage of fault but does not bar it entirely unless you are more than 50 percent responsible. For example, if your damages are $500,000 and you are found 20 percent at fault, you recover $400,000. An attorney's job is to minimize the fault attributed to you by demonstrating the foreseeability of your conduct and the severity of the product's defect.
How does BAM Injury Law handle product liability cases?
BAM Injury Law handles product liability cases involving auto defects, medical devices, industrial machinery, and consumer products throughout Utah on a contingency fee basis, meaning no attorney fees unless we win. The firm retains forensic engineers, medical experts, and industry specialists to establish the defect and causation. Contact us for a free consultation to discuss the facts of your case and whether a product liability claim is viable.
"*" indicates required fields