Connecticut applies a strict liability standard in many defective product claims, which significantly impacts how injury victims can pursue compensation. Under this rule, plaintiffs don't need to prove a manufacturer's negligence to succeed. Instead, they must demonstrate that the product was defective, unreasonably dangerous, and that the defect directly caused harm.

For consumers injured by faulty goods—from home appliances to vehicle parts—understanding how strict liability works in Connecticut can determine whether their case moves forward or stalls in court. This article breaks down the main principles of strict product liability, outlines what plaintiffs must prove, and highlights key distinctions under Connecticut law.

What Is Strict Liability in Product Cases?

Strict liability removes the burden of proving fault. If a product is defective and causes someone harm, the manufacturer, distributor, or the retailer may be held legally responsible—even if they took reasonable precautions.

In Connecticut, strict liability for defective products is recognized under common law and is also codified in state statutes, including the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA), which consolidates all product-related claims—whether based on negligence, warranty, or strict liability—into a single cause of action.

This framework serves to protect consumers and hold companies accountable for putting unsafe products into the marketplace.

Types of Product Defects Recognized in Connecticut

Not every product flaw leads to a viable legal claim. Courts in Connecticut recognize three main categories of product defects:

• Manufacturing Defects: These occur during production and result in a product that deviates from the intended design. For example, a bike with a cracked frame due to poor welding could fall under this category.
• Design Defects: In this case, the product's blueprint is inherently dangerous—even when manufactured as intended. An example might include a space heater that lacks proper safeguards to prevent tipping and overheating.
• Marketing Defects (Failure to Warn): When companies fail to provide adequate warnings or instructions, they will be held liable. For instance, failing to alert users to side effects on a pharmaceutical label could qualify as a marketing defect.

Key Elements Plaintiffs Must Prove

While strict liability makes it easier to sue compared to negligence-based claims, plaintiffs still carry the burden of proof. In Connecticut, an injured party must establish the following:

1. The product was defective when it left the defendant's control.
2. The defect made the product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.
3. The defect was the direct cause of the injury.
4. The product was being used as intended (or in a reasonably foreseeable way) at the time of injury.
5. No substantial alterations were made to the product before the incident.

Each of these elements must be supported with clear evidence—medical records, expert testimony, product testing reports, and photos can all strengthen a claim.

Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA): A Unified Framework

The CPLA streamlines product-related lawsuits by creating a unified action for any harm caused by defective goods. Whether a plaintiff is alleging strict liability, negligence, or breach of warranty, all claims fall under the CPLA's jurisdiction. This unified structure helps courts handle product liability cases more efficiently and provides a consistent process for plaintiffs.

The statute also defines who can be sued under strict liability. These include:

• Product manufacturers
• Designers
• Distributors
• Sellers
• Lessors

Connecticut courts have repeatedly upheld that even parties not directly involved in the manufacturing process—such as retailers—may bear liability if the product was sold in the course of their business.

Statute of Limitations for Product Liability in Connecticut

Under Connecticut law, injured parties generally have three years from the date of injury to file a product liability lawsuit. However, there's a ten-year "statute of repose," which bars claims more than a decade after the product was first sold, regardless of when the injury occurred.

This can significantly affect cases involving long-lasting goods, such as cars, tools, or medical devices. If the harm arises more than ten years after the product was delivered to the first purchaser, the case is likely barred—even if the injury just occurred.

Comparative Fault Still Applies

Although strict liability removes the need to prove negligence, Connecticut still applies modified comparative fault. If a plaintiff is found partially at fault—for example, by misusing the product—their compensation may be reduced in proportion to their share of blame.

However, if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault, they cannot recover damages. This rule underscores the importance of how the product was being used at the time of the incident.

The Role of Expert Testimony

Product liability cases often hinge on technical evidence, particularly when design flaws or manufacturing processes are at issue. Connecticut courts frequently require expert witnesses to help jurors understand complex engineering, medical, or industry-specific standards.

Experts may testify about:

• Industry norms
• Safer alternative designs
• Whether proper warnings were included
• The probable cause of the defect

Their input often determines the outcome of a case, especially when the defect is not immediately visible or understandable to a layperson.

Examples of Strict Liability in Action

Connecticut courts have seen numerous cases where strict liability led to compensation for injured consumers. For instance:

• A defective tire that separated on the highway, causing a rollover crash.
• A child's toy with toxic paint that led to poisoning.
• A faulty ladder that collapsed due to a weak joint.

These cases often turn on proving the product's condition at the time of sale and eliminating other potential causes of the injury.

Conclusion

Connecticut's strict liability rule in defective product cases offers strong protections for consumers harmed by unsafe goods. While the law removes the need to prove negligence, success still depends on presenting a well-supported case that meets the legal standards for defect, causation, and use.

Understanding how the CPLA structures these claims, the importance of expert input, and the impact of comparative fault can help injury victims assess their legal options. If you've been injured by a defective product, talking to an experienced product liability attorney can clarify your rights and help you build a case grounded in the specifics of Connecticut law.

Need Legal Help? Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law is One Phone Call Away

Navigating Connecticut product liability claims can be challenging. Fortunately, you don't need to do it alone. The experienced lawyers at Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law, are available 24/7 to help you understand your legal options, gather necessary evidence, and build a strong case to secure the settlement you deserve.

Contact us now for a free legal review.