Source: http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/practice-areas/product-liability/united-states-product-liability/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:13:51+00:00

Document:
This country-specific Q&A provides an overview to product liability laws and regulations that may occur in Virginia (United States).
“A manufacturer is not required to supply an accident-proof product. Rather, the standard of safety of goods imposed on the manufacturer of a product is essentially the same whether the theory of liability is labeled warranty or negligence. The product must be fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is to be used.” Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Gamble by Gamble, 256 Va. 144, 148 (1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted). In Virginia, a plaintiff can proceed under “alternative theories of liability”: negligence and breach of warranty. See id. at 147.
Virginia has not adopted strict liability in tort and does not permit recovery in tort on a strict liability theory in products liability cases. See Evans v. NACCO Materials Handling Grp., Inc., 295 Va. 235, 246 (2018); see also Harris v. T.I., Inc., 243 Va. 63, 71 (1992).
To recover in a product liability action in Virginia, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the goods were unreasonably dangerous for ordinary or reasonably foreseeable use; (2) the unreasonably dangerous condition existed when the goods left the defendant’s control; and (3) the defective product proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries. See Logan v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 216 Va. 425, 428 (1975); see also Garrett v. I.R. Witzer Co., 258 Va. 264, 267-68 (1999); see also Evans v. Nacco Materials Handling Grp., Inc., 295 Va. 235, 246 (2018) (“Whether a plaintiff proceeds under a theory of warranty or negligence, the plaintiff must prove: (1) that the goods were unreasonably dangerous either for the use to which they would ordinarily be put or for some other reasonably foreseeable purpose, and (2) that the unreasonably dangerous condition existed when the goods left the defendant’s hands.”). These elements are essentially the same whether a plaintiff sues for negligence or breach of warranty. See Benedict v. Hankook Tire Co., Ltd., 295 F. Supp. 3d 632, 640 (E.D. Va. 2018) (“Virginia largely has abandoned the distinctions between negligence and non-negligence causes of action in products liability actions.”).
In Virginia, a plaintiff may recover compensatory damages for past, present, and future medical expenses; lost earnings; pain and suffering; impaired future earning capacity; and permanent disability as long as it can be proven to a reasonable degree of certainty. See, e.g., Hailes v. Gonzales, 207 Va. 612, 614 (1996). Proof with mathematical precision is not required; however, a plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to support an intelligent and probable estimate of damages. Id. at 614. Punitive damages are recoverable if the plaintiff can prove the defendant’s conduct was wanton, willful, malicious, and/or evinces a conscious disregard of the rights of others. See Doe v. Isaacs, 265 Va. 531, 535 (2003). “[A]n award of compensatory damages . . . is an indispensible predicate for an award of punitive damages, except in actions for libel and slander.” Syed v. ZH Techs., Inc., 280 Va. 58, 74-75 (2010).
In Virginia, each tortfeasor is jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for the full amount of plaintiff’s damages caused by their negligence when involved in a joint enterprise or when the joint tortfeasors’ actions produce a single indivisible injury. See Alban Tractor Co. v. Sheffield, 220 Va. 861, 863 (1980); Dickenson v. Tabb, 208 Va. 184, 192-93 (1967). “Contribution among wrongdoers may be enforced when the wrong results from negligence and involves no moral turpitude.” Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-34. “A person who enters into a release or covenant not to sue with a claimant is not entitled to recover by way of contribution from another person whose liability for the injury, property damage or wrongful death is not extinguished by the release or covenant not to sue, nor in respect to any amount paid by the person which is in excess of what was reasonable.” Va. Code § 8.01-35.1.
Yes, many defenses are available. A few of the most common defenses are summarized below; however, depending on the facts and circumstances of your specific case, other defenses may also be available.
Assumption of risk: Assumption of risk is a complete defense to a negligence action and requires the showing that the plaintiff fully appreciated the nature and extent of the risk and voluntarily chose to assume it. Thurmond v. Prince William Prof’l Baseball Club, Inc., 265 Va. 59, 64 (2003); Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. Dungee, 258 Va. 235, 250 (1999).
Contributory negligence: Contributory negligence is a complete defense to a negligence action and requires a determination of whether a plaintiff’s failure to exercise ordinary care for his own safety proximately contributed to his injury regardless of defendant’s negligence. See RGR, LLC v. Settle, 288 Va. 260, 283-84 (2014); Ford Motor Co. . Bartholomew, 224 Va. 421, 432 (1982).
Misuse: A plaintiff cannot recover against a manufacturer if the plaintiff has misused the product in a manner not reasonably foreseeable. See Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Melendez, 260 Va. 578, 590 (2000). In addition, any alteration that is causally related to plaintiff’s injury could relieve a defendant from liability. See Morgen Indus., Inc. v. Vaughan, 252 Va. 60, 66 (1996).
Open and Obvious: “When the dangerous condition is obvious and patent to all, the manufacturer of the product is not liable for injury to the user.” Morgen Indus., 252 Va. at 69.
Learned Intermediary: A manufacturer of prescription drugs has been held to only have a duty to warn the physician not the patient of potential risks of the product. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Jones, 221 Va. 681, 684 (1980).
Mitigation: The defendant has the burden to prove that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. See Forbes v. Rapp, 269 Va. 374, 380 (2005).
Damage to Product: Absent privity of contract, a plaintiff cannot bring a negligence action to recover for damage to the defective product itself. See Sensenbrenner v. Rust, Orling & Neale, Architects, Inc., 236 Va. 419, 424-25 (1988).
Sophisticated User: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, interpreting Virginia law, has recognized the sophisticated user defense where a defendant is relieved of liability when a product is supplied to an individual whom the defendant believes will act to protect the safety of himself and others. See, e.g., Buettner v. R.W. Martin & Sons, Inc., 47 F.3d 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1995).
Workers’ Compensation Bar: The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act is the sole and exclusive remedy against an employer for an employee injured at work. See Va. Code § 65.2-307(A).
Generally, personal injury claims must be brought within two years of accrual. Va Code §§ 8.01-243(A), 8.01-246. Claims for damaged property must be brought within five years of accrual. Va Code § 8.01-243(B). If the property at issue was subject to a sales contract, the limitation period becomes four years. Va Code §§ 8.01-246, 8.2-725(1).
Virginia takes a critical view on a non-manufacturer’s attempts to escape liability. Indeed, if the buyer reasonably believes the defendant to be the manufacturer, the defendant can be held liable for defects and related injuries to the same extent, and on the same grounds, as the manufacturer. See, e.g., Carney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 309 F.2d 300, 305 (4th Cir. 1962) (“The fact that the defendant did not at any time say it was the manufacturer of the product is immaterial if there were reasonable grounds to believe it to be the manufacturer.” (citation omitted)).
Generally, “[i]mplied warranties arise by operation of law without regard to the expressed intention of the parties . . . .” See Carney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 309 F.2d 300, 303 (4th Cir. 1962).
In Virginia, a plaintiff may recover compensatory damages for past, present, and future medical expenses; lost earnings; pain and suffering; impaired future earning capacity; and permanent disability as long as it can be proven to a reasonable degree of certainty. See, e.g., Hailes v. Gonzales, 207 Va. 612, 614 (1996). Proof with mathematical precision is not required; however, a plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to support an intelligent and probable estimate of damages. Id. at 614. Punitive damages are recoverable if the plaintiff can prove the defendant’s conduct was wanton, willful, malicious, and/or evinces a conscious disregard of the rights of others. See Doe v. Isaacs, 265 Va. 531, 535 (2003). “[A]n award of compensatory damages . . . is an indispensable predicate for an award of punitive damages, except in actions for libel and slander.” Syed v. ZH Techs., Inc., 280 Va. 58, 74-75 (2010).
Holiday Motor Corp v. Walters, 292 Va. 461 (2016): The Supreme Court of Virginia held that an auto manufacturer did not have a duty to provide rollover protection rejecting the “crashworthiness doctrine.” Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff’s expert testimony—even if the defendant owed a duty—was inadmissible for lack of adequate foundation. This decision is a stark move towards requiring Virginia state courts to maintain a gate-keeping function akin to the federal district courts that did not previously exist.
Dorman v. State Indus., Inc., 292 Va. 111 (2016): The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the trial court’s allowance of other possible causes evidence and the issuance of a superseding cause jury instruction.
Evans v. Nacco Materials Handling Grp., Inc., 295 Va. 235, 251 (2018): The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the plaintiff failed to prove defendant’s product was unreasonably dangerous and that the jury had rejected an alternative theory of a failure to warn.
Upon receiving a claim or threatened claim, a defendant shall take the necessary steps to preserve relevant evidence to avoid any negative spoliation inference. See, e.g., Emerald Point, LLC v. Hawkins, 294 Va. 544, 556-59 (2017).
The defendant should also begin to develop the necessary evidence to properly respond to a plaintiff’s complaint. In Virginia, a defendant must file a responsive pleading within 21 days after service of process. Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3:8. If the defendant chooses to answer the complaint, an attorney may face sanctions for asserting affirmative defenses that lack a sufficient factual basis as the ability to reserve an affirmative defense is likely unavailable. See Ford Motor Co. v. Benitez, 273 Va. 242, 251-52 (2007). However, Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3:18 allows for the affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and statute of limitations to be pled generally.
Both the United States Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts are well adept at handling complex product liability claims if the claim can properly be removed from state court. If the claim cannot be removed, many Virginia state courts also are well adept to handle these complex cases. As long as properly demanded, juries decide complex product liability claims. See, e.g., Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3:21.
Virginia does not provide a mechanism for class action claims in state court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, however, allows federal courts in Virginia to proceed with class actions.
Virginia’s Multi Claim Litigation Act, Va. Code § 8.01-267.1, et seq., provides a mechanism to join, coordinate, consolidate, or transfer multiple individual actions that involve common questions of law or fact and arise out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences.
Many plaintiffs’ attorneys take complex product liability cases on a contingency fee basis based on a predetermined, agreed-upon percentage. Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 1764 suggests that third party funding of litigation by a non-lawyer (such as a financial institute) is impermissible. See also Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 1047 (attorney’s fee may not be shared with a group of medical experts), 1438 (attorney’s fee may not be shared with an advertising firm); Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion1676 (attorney’s fee may not be shared with an electronic tracking firm).
Products liability claims are becoming increasingly common. Many factors contribute to the frequency of these claims include but are not limited to: (1) plaintiffs’ counsel familiarity with such claims; (2) media coverage; (3) consumer expectations; (4) the economy; and (5) increased advances in technology.
Products liability law and practice will continue to grow and refine with technological developments. These developments will have a significant impact on the future of products liability law and require courts to grapple with many issues and scenarios that are unique. One example that comes to mind is self-driving cars. While these issues will requires courts to make many first impression decisions on issues, it is unlikely to upend the sustainability of products liability litigation. In addition, jury trials will be different because it will be difficult to explain these more complex, autonomous advancements to jurors.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 65
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8