Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572q

Current with legislation from the 2023 Regular and Special Sessions.

Section 52-572q - Liability of product seller due to lack of adequate warnings or instructions

(a) A product seller may be subject to liability for harm caused to a claimant who proves by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the product was defective in that adequate warnings or instructions were not provided.

(b) In determining whether instructions or warnings were required and, if required, whether they were adequate, the trier of fact may consider:

(1) The likelihood that the product would cause the harm suffered by the claimant;

(2) the ability of the product seller to anticipate at the time of manufacture that the expected product user would be aware of the product risk, and the nature of the potential harm; and

(3) the technological feasibility and cost of warnings and instructions.

(c) In claims based on this section, the claimant shall prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that if adequate warnings or instructions had been provided, the claimant would not have suffered the harm.

(d) A product seller may not be considered to have provided adequate warnings or instructions unless they were devised to communicate with the person best able to take or recommend precautions against the potential harm.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572q

(P.A. 79-483, S. 6; P.A. 90-191, S. 2.)

Cited. 187 Conn. 363; 192 Conn. 280; 200 Conn. 562; 203 Conn. 156; 204 Conn. 399. Sec. 52-572m et seq., product liability act, abrogated common law indemnification principles in this area. 205 Conn. 694. Cited. 207 Conn. 575; Id., 599; 210 Conn. 189; 212 Conn. 462; Id., 509; 213 Conn. 136; 216 Conn. 65; 226 Conn. 282; 228 C. 905; 229 Conn. 213; Id., 500; 230 Conn. 12; 232 C. 915; 233 Conn. 732; 236 C. 27; Id., 769. Product liability law discussed. 241 Conn. 199. Modified consumer expectation test, recognized in 241 Conn. 199, is the primary strict product liability test; ordinary consumer expectation test is reserved for those limited cases in which product fails to meet consumer's legitimate, commonly accepted minimum safety expectations. 321 Conn. 172. Cited. 1 CA 48; 3 Conn.App. 230; 8 Conn.App. 642; 16 Conn.App. 558; 30 Conn.App. 664; 31 Conn.App. 824; 32 Conn.App. 373; judgment reversed, see 229 Conn. 829; 36 Conn.App. 601; 39 Conn.App. 635; 41 Conn.App. 555; Id., 856; 46 CA 18; Id., 699. Cited. 40 Conn.Supp. 120; 41 Conn.Supp. 179; 42 Conn.Supp. 153; 44 Conn.Supp. 510. Subsec. (b): Subdiv. (2) recognizes that a sophisticated buyer may not need same level of warning as an ordinary buyer would. 76 CA 137.