Why Naming Multiple Defendants In A Lawsuit Is Common Practice

When a product liability client is sued, they are usually amazed at how many parties are named in the product liability lawsuit and how many of the named parties have little or no connection to the product that allegedly caused the injury.  

The 3 reasons below will provide a little insight into why there are multiple defendants named when there is a product liability lawsuit.

The first reason there are so many parties named in a product liability lawsuit is  “Alternative Liability Theory”.  This theory allows the plaintiff to shift the burden of proving which of the two or more defendants was responsible for their injury to those defendants in which the plaintiff cannot identify.  Under this theory the plaintiff still has to prove the product caused the injury; however, it relieves the plaintiff of the burden of identifying the source of the product and requires the defendants to prove they were not the source of the injury.  This theory also is a means to get the defendants to identify the guilty parties responsible for the injury in order to avoid being subject to liability themselves.

Of course since product liability law is subject to individual state laws, “Alternative Liability Theory” may not apply in your state.

A second reason so many defendants are often named on product liability lawsuits is because the plaintiff’s attorney could be sued for malpractice, if the attorney fails to name a responsible party to the lawsuit and as a result, the plaintiff misses out on receiving compensation for the injury.  Since legally the plaintiff’s attorney cannot bring the same lawsuit twice, it is the responsibility of the attorney to name all parties that could even remotely have any responsibility for the injury.

The third reason is what makes people so cynical about the legal system.  In the U.S. our Discovery rules are so liberal that attorneys have perfected the art of covering up potential defendants with discovery paperwork.  The costs to comply is so expensive that it is more often in the financial best interest of the defendant’s insurance carrier to provide a settle payment to get release from the lawsuit than to go to the expense of trying to comply with discovery. 

Simply put, by naming as many defendants as possible, the plaintiff’s attorney can increase the amount of money they can collect.  For example, the cost of complying with discovery could potentially cost $10,000; however, by settling for $7,000 the insurance carrier ultimately saves $3,000.  So the next time your insurance carrier decides to settle rather than fight or defend a frivolous product liability lawsuit you will understand that the settlement is based on pure economics.  If you are adamant about defending what you see as a frivolous lawsuit, your insurance carrier may agree to pay you the settlement amount and allow you to hire your own attorney to defend the claim.