← University
Product Liability: When Your Product Causes Harm
0 of 4

A regional housewares company based in southern Ontario has operated for 14 years as both a manufacturer of certain product lines and a distributor of goods sourced from overseas suppliers. The company designs and produces a line of small kitchen appliances at its own facility while also importing complementary products from 3 manufacturing partners in Asia, which it rebrands and sells through major Canadian retail chains and its own e-commerce platform. Annual revenues have grown to approximately $8.5 million, with imported goods accounting for roughly 60 percent of sales volume.

The incident that now demands attention occurred when a consumer suffered serious burns after a portable electric kettle malfunctioned during ordinary use. The kettle was part of the company's imported line, sourced from an overseas manufacturer with whom the company has maintained a supply relationship for 7 years. The consumer, a 34-year-old woman, sustained 2nd-degree burns to her hand and forearm when the kettle's lid mechanism failed, causing boiling water to discharge unexpectedly. She required emergency medical treatment and has been unable to work at her regular employment for 6 weeks. Her lawyer has sent a demand letter to the company seeking compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, with the total claim exceeding $85,000.

Initial investigation reveals several complicating factors. The kettle's design originated with the overseas manufacturer, but the company's product development team requested modifications to the lid assembly 18 months ago to accommodate a different aesthetic for the Canadian market. The company's quality control records show that incoming shipments of this product line underwent spot-check inspection at a rate of 1 in every 50 units, consistent with its standard practice for imported goods. The product packaging and instruction manual were prepared by the company's marketing department and do not include certain safety warnings that appear on the manufacturer's original documentation.

The company carries a commercial general liability policy with $2 million in coverage, though the policy contains exclusions that may affect coverage for product-related claims. No formal recall planning protocol exists, and the company has received 2 other consumer complaints about the same kettle model within the past 8 months, neither of which resulted in injury but both of which described similar lid mechanism concerns. The overseas manufacturer has offered limited cooperation, citing contractual provisions that purport to allocate liability entirely to the Canadian distributor. Records of the design modification request, quality inspection logs, correspondence with the overseas supplier, and the company's insurance policy all bear on the questions of responsibility, exposure, and appropriate response.

Managing Product Liability Risk: Documentation, Insurance, and Recall Planning

Product liability represents one of the most significant legal exposures facing Canadian businesses that manufacture, distribute, import, or sell physical goods. Throughout this course, we have examined how liability arises, the theories under which injured parties can seek compensation, and the defences available to businesses facing claims. This final lesson addresses the practical reality that most business owners care about: how to reduce the likelihood of facing a product liability claim in the first place, and how to minimize the damage if a claim does arise. Managing product liability risk requires a coordinated approach that encompasses rigorous documentation practices, appropriate insurance coverage, and well-considered recall planning. These three pillars work together to create a defensive framework that protects both the business and the consumers who rely on its products.

Documentation serves as the backbone of any product liability risk management strategy. When a claim arises months or years after a product leaves your control, the records you maintained during design, manufacturing, and distribution become critical evidence. Courts and regulators will examine what you knew, when you knew it, and what actions you took in response. Businesses that cannot produce comprehensive documentation often find themselves in a significantly weakened position, unable to demonstrate that they exercised reasonable care or met applicable safety standards. The principle underlying this requirement stems from the duty of care that manufacturers and sellers owe to consumers under negligence law, which applies throughout common law provinces including British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario. In Quebec, similar obligations arise under the Civil Code of Quebec, which imposes liability on manufacturers for injuries caused by safety defects in their products. Across all Canadian jurisdictions, the quality and completeness of your records can determine whether you successfully defend a claim or face substantial liability.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $79 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.