Awards and Honors
Martindale Hubbell - AV rated lawyer - Best Rating Possible
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
AVVO Top Rated Personal Injury Attorney, 10 of 10
ATLA Top 100
Lawyers.com - Rated 5.0 out of 5.0 - Top Rating Possible
National Trial Lawyers - Top 100 Trial Lawyers
Million Dollar Advocates Forum
American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2014
Marquis' Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in America and Who's Who in American Law
AVVO Clients' Choice Personal Injury Lawyer
American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2013
What is Meant by the term "Defective Product"?
A "defective product" for product liability purposes
is one that causes an injury or damage as a result of
some failure in the product or its labeling.
The manufacturer and others involved in the
chain of distribution of the product that caused the injury
are generally liable
for injuries that defective products cause.
The courts in Hawaii, like in many other states,
allow a personal injury claim to be pursued by a person
who is injured by or incurs loss due to a "defective product".
These claims are called "Product liability" claims-
and are also known as defective product claims. Generally if
the accident occurred in Hawaii, you will want to obtain the
services of a Hawaii products liability lawyer aka a
Hawaii product liability attorney or a Hawaii defective products lawyer
to help you with such a claim.
Products - Products Liability Claims in Hawaii
Deadlines to File Products Liability/ Dangerous Product
deadline for most dangerous product (product liability)
claims in Hawaii is two (2) years from the date of the injury
caused by the product. It should be noted, however, that there are
exceptions to this rule- for example, claims
against the City and County of Honolulu and
the various other Counties must be filed with the appropriate agency
within six (6) months of the date of the accident.
There are also some other exceptions which may
provide some additional time in certain cases, since some
dangerous products may cause injuries which do not appear
for years after exposure to the product and other dangerous
products may cause injuries which are not connected to the
product by medical science for years after the exposure.
Generally the date of the injury is not deemed to have occurred
until (1) exposure to the product, (2) injury from the product
and (3) reason to know of the connection between the exposure
and the injury- have all occurred. In some cases where a
manufacturer has deliberately misled the public as to the
safety of its product, the deadline for filing the
product liability - defective product claim
may be longer still. You must file your claims in
court prior to the expiration of such deadlines, or your
claims may be lost—regardless of their merit.
To be wise it is recommended that you contact a
product liability attorney or defective product lawyer immediately
after an accident involving a product which gives rise to injuries occurs.
Please do not hesitate to :
Accident Lawyer Hawaii now for a free evaluation of your case.
Defective Product Liability Claim Information
Generally a product liability claim arises where a defective
product has caused injury. A product is defective if it
poses an unreasonable risk of harm. A product may be defective
in design or in manufacture. The definition of a product
is pretty broad, and it can even include components of a
building such as an escalator. Leong
v. Sears Roebuck and Co.
Hawaii Supreme Court Case No. 20865 (December 14, 1998).
The absence of a warning of danger may be a defect and a
warning which is deficient to provide a consumer with basic
safety information may also be a defect. A victim does not
need to be the owner or purchaser of the product in order
to make a claim. However, if a victim is found to have been
negligent in using a defective product (ie. to have failed
to use ordinary care), it may reduce or completely defeat
any recovery available under a products liability claim.
Examples of product liability - Defective Product
Some examples of dangerous products which have been led
to successful products liability claims include:
dangerous products - like aerosol cans-
which explode or otherwise injure users and/or bystanders, an appliance
or other electrical device which gives an electrical
shock or which ignites or causes nearby
materials to catch on fire, asbestos, medical devices which
fail or which otherwise cause serious injury, medications
with serious undisclosed side effects, vehicles which are
unsafe to operate, equipment which comes apart causing injury when used,
products which cause injury due to radiation exposure, equipment
without safety shields, childrens' toys which endanger the
child, furniture which comes apart or collapses during use,
highly flammable fabrics in clothing, products which violate
OSHA or other state or federal regulations, products which
fail to comply with UL or CPSC standards and products without
warnings of hidden dangers.
Court Cases regarding product liability - Defective Product Claims
This website has an extensive commentary on Product Liability cases
both in Hawaii and on the mainland. The links below will take you to
specific topics in the law of products liability. (These links can
also be found in the "Products Liability - Hawaii Cases & Comment" pull-down
window in the right-hand menu of this site)
Products Liability - Hawaii Cases & Comment
Product Liability Law
Lessor- Strict Liability
Last Clear Chance
Assumption of Risk
Other Similar Accidents
Lay & Expert Witnesses
Videos & Pictures
Later Product Changes
Spoilation of Evidence claims in Products Liability Actions
STENDER v. VINCENT, January 31, 2000
The Hawaii Supreme Court holds that in an appropriate case-
even if a party was not at fault- a trial court can give
an adverse inference jury instruction (on the issue of liability)
as a sanction for spoilation of evidence (such as the loss or
destruction of the product [a motor vehicle] involved in the accident).
Moreover, the court finds that in this case, the trial
court was also required to exclude volumnious discovery responses submitted
too late for the opposing party to have a reasonable opportunity to
review and respond (thousands of documents submitted
just after the discovery cutoff).
Fraudulent Concealment of Evidence claims in Products Liability Actions
Living Designs v. Dupont (one of the Bentlate cases), December 5, 2005 The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment decision rendered by a visiting judge in the District Court of Hawaii and remanded the case for trial following the recent case of Matsuura v. Du Pont, 330 F.Supp.2d 1101 (2004) (Benlate discovery and settlement fraud). The law regarding the settlement agreements which had been obtained by Dupont while Dupont was concealing evidence related to Bentlate had been the subject of 3 precedential certified questions answered by the HI Supreme Court in Matsuura v. Du Pont, 102 Hawai'i 149 (2003) - but Judge Real had not waited for those decisions before ruling against the claimants who alleged settlement fraud. The 9th Circuit Court ordered that the case on remand be reassigned from Judge Manual Real because of serious improprieties he committed as described in their opinion.
Links relating to Product Liability - Defective Products
Product Liability Links
A listing of government and private websites involving products liability and defective products.
Accident Lawyer Hawaii
William H. Lawson, Esq.
1188 Bishop St. Suite 2902
Honolulu, HI 96813
New client hotline:
Pearl City, Aiea and Waipahu:
Main business phone:
Directions to Honolulu office
HI accident news
Court cases re:
Hawaii accident law
Products Liability - Cases & Comment
Jones Act- maritime law and seaman cases
The Constitution Of The State Of Hawaii
Recent Personal Injury and Car Accident News
The Hawaii Supreme Court recently upped the stakes for individuals knowingly participating in fraudulent transfers designed to leave the claims of creditors unsatisfied. In the case of Kekona v Borneman, Sup. Ct. No 29036, (Hawaii Civil No. 93-3974, April 24, 2015), the HSCt affirmed a civil judgment which awarded in excess of $250,000 in compensatory damages and in excess of $1,600,000 in punitive damages against a third party who willingly received real property from a debtor who was trying to defraud her creditors. The court considered (1) the expenses and delays of the litigation, (2) the level of the misconduct of the third party and (3) the third party's net worth in upholding the punitive damages award of over 6 times the compensatory damages. (The standard of proof required was 'clear and convincing evidence').