State To State Variability – Statute of Repose

2009 December 29

A common theme in many of my blogs is the impact individual state laws or statutes can have on the outcome of a product liability lawsuit.  It is, in my opinion, possible to take the exact set of circumstances of a product liability lawsuit and have different outcomes in different states.  Product liability laws or statutes are created by state legislators and can be very different from state to state.  While there have been attempts to create federal preemption for medical products, all too often state laws continue to prevail over the federal preemptive defense.

One of the state laws that can have a major impact on the outcome of a product liability lawsuit is the Statute of Repose.  The Statute of Repose prevents product liability lawsuits against the manufactures, importers, designers and distributors of products based on the age of the product.  However, only 19 of the 50 states have Statute of Repose laws to protect businesses from product liability lawsuits.  Most of the states that have Statute of Repose laws limit product liability lawsuits somewhere between 5 to 12 years after the sale of a product.  Two states, Arizona and Rhode Island, have found Statutes of Repose laws for products unconstitutional.

One of the industries that is very familiar with Statute of Repose laws and the impact they can have on a product liability lawsuit is the Tree Stand industry.  For example, if a kid where to die or become a quadriplegic in a state with a 10 year Statute of Repose law and the age of the tree stand was 11 years from the date of sale, the manufacture, designer and sellers of the tree stand could be protected from a product liability lawsuit because of the 10 year deadline was exceeded.  However, in another state that did not have a Statute of Repose law, the manufacture, designer and sellers of the tree stand could find themselves named as defendants in a product liability lawsuit and, at the very least, incur discovery and settlement costs and, at the worst, large monetary judgments by a sympathetic jury.

One Response leave one →
  1. 2010 June 12

    Good job. I’m definitely going to bookmark you!