For example, a power saw that explodes when used on unrecommended hard wood, might well be defective. In showing breach, the reasonable manufacturer standard applies, i.e., would the reasonable manufacturer, with knowledge or constructive knowledge of the product's defect, have produced the product. Of course, the plaintiff need also prove he or she was injured and that the defendant's breach caused the injury. Strict Liability Strict liability is different from a negligence theory in that the injured plaintiff need not show knowledge or fault on the manufacturer's part. The plaintiff must show only that the product was sold or distributed by a defendant, and that the product was unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the defendant's hands in order to prove liability on the part of such defendant.
Strict liability concerns only the condition of the product itself.
In contrast, a negligence theory concerns not only the product, but also the manufacturer's knowledge and conduct. Simply because a person is injured, he or she cannot assert strict liability and automatically recover. Instead, the injured consumer in asserting strict liability, still must prove his or her right to compensation by showing that the unreasonable dangerous condition of the product was what actually caused the injuries sustained. The final products liability theory is that of breach of warranty. Every product comes with an implied warranty that it is safe for its intended use.