Torts: product liability; limitation on liability for drugs that have been approved by federal Food and Drug Administration; rescind. Amends sec. 2946 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.2946).
The modification of liability standards could have far-reaching implications on state laws surrounding product safety and manufacturer accountability. By requiring a higher threshold for proving liability, SB0410 is likely to reduce the number of successful claims against manufacturers, shifting the balance of legal responsibility from producers to consumers. This shift may lead to an increase in the production of and reliance on products that meet federal safety standards but do not guarantee consumer safety in practical use. If enacted, the law may thus affect consumers who may find it more challenging to seek recourse after being harmed by defective products, altering the landscape of product safety litigation in Michigan.
Senate Bill 0410 focuses on the modification of liability standards in product liability claims against manufacturers and sellers. The bill amends section 2946 of the Michigan Civil Practice Act, establishing that manufacturers or sellers cannot be held liable in product liability actions unless the plaintiff can prove that the product was not reasonably safe at the time it left their control. This introduces a significant burden of proof on plaintiffs, who must now demonstrate both the unsafe condition of the product and the availability of feasible alternative production practices that would have prevented harm. This change is aimed at offering manufacturers more protection against claims, particularly in instances where products comply with existing safety standards.
The sentiment surrounding SB0410 appears to reflect a divide between pro-business advocates and consumer rights groups. Proponents of the bill, including many legislators, argue that it is necessary to protect companies from unsubstantiated liability claims that can threaten their operations and innovation efforts. Conversely, critics worry that the bill undermines consumer protections and may lead to inadequate accountability among manufacturers for product safety. The conversation around this bill indicates a broader debate about the extent to which legal frameworks should favor economic interests over consumer safety and justice.
A notable point of contention is the rebuttable presumption of non-liability, which the bill introduces. This presumption states that if a product adhered to relevant federal or state standards at the time of sale, the manufacturer is generally not considered negligent. Critics argue that this could create a loophole, allowing manufacturers to evade responsibility for potential hazards that may not have been addressed by existing regulations at the time of sale. This has raised concerns among consumer advocacy groups about whether adequate protections remain in place to safeguard public health and safety, especially in light of rapidly evolving standards in technology and science.