Product Liability
When a defective product injures someone, the maker often has far more resources to defend the claim than the person hurt by it has to bring it. We represent people seriously harmed by dangerous products across Washington, under the state's Product Liability Act, and we hold manufacturers accountable for what they put into the market.
Talk to an attorneyFounded
1965
Attorneys
11
AV-rated
Martindale-Hubbell
Office
Bellevue, WA
Founded
1965
Attorneys
5
AV-rated
Martindale-Hubbell
Office
Bellevue, WA
Product liability lawyers for Bellevue and Seattle consumers
Oseran Hahn represents people injured by defective and dangerous products. Washington consolidated this area into a single statute, the Product Liability Act, which defines when a manufacturer or seller is liable for harm a product causes, whether the defect is in its design, its manufacture, or the warnings that came with it. These cases are technical and expert-intensive, defended hard by manufacturers and their insurers. We litigate design, manufacturing, and warning-defect claims, sort out who in the supply chain is responsible, and build the engineering and damages proof these cases require.
A product liability case is a claim that a product was not reasonably safe and that it caused serious harm. We bring claims under Washington's Product Liability Act, which sets out when a manufacturer is liable for a defective product. We litigate design defects, where the product was dangerous as conceived, and manufacturing defects, where it left the line flawed. We pursue failure-to-warn claims when the risks weren't adequately disclosed. We identify every liable party in the chain, from manufacturer to seller, within the limits the statute sets. And we build the expert proof and damages case that a well-defended product claim demands.
The Washington Product Liability Act
Washington channels nearly all claims for product-caused injury through a single statute, the Washington Product Liability Act (RCW 7.72), which replaced the old patchwork of negligence, warranty, and strict-liability theories with one consolidated cause of action. Under it, a manufacturer is liable when its product was not reasonably safe, and the Act recognizes the ways that can happen: a defect in the product's design, a flaw in its construction, inadequate warnings or instructions, or a failure to meet an express warranty (RCW 7.72.030). Whether a product was reasonably safe is measured against what an ordinary consumer would expect and, for design, a weighing of the risks against the burden of a safer alternative. Knowing which theory the facts support, and how the Act frames it, is where these cases begin.
Design and manufacturing defects
Two of the most common claims target the product itself, and they differ in an important way. A design defect means the product is dangerous as designed: every unit carries the same flaw, and the question is whether a reasonably safer alternative design was feasible. A manufacturing defect means the design was sound but a particular unit left the line flawed, deviating from its intended specifications, and Washington holds the manufacturer strictly liable for that kind of defect regardless of how careful it was. The distinction shapes the entire case, from the experts retained to the discovery sought, because a design case puts the manufacturer's engineering choices on trial while a manufacturing case focuses on the single product that failed.
Failure to warn and inadequate instructions
Sometimes the product is well-designed and properly made but dangerous because the maker didn't adequately warn of its risks or explain how to use it safely. Washington recognizes a failure-to-warn claim when a manufacturer didn't provide the warnings or instructions a reasonably prudent maker would have, given the foreseeable risks (RCW 7.72.030). The duty can extend after the sale, when a manufacturer learns of a danger only once the product is already in use. These claims turn on what the manufacturer knew or should have known about the risk, when it knew it, and whether the warning it gave was adequate to actually reach and protect the user. We develop that knowledge timeline, which is often where the case is won.
Who is liable, and for how long
Product cases usually involve a chain, the manufacturer, distributors, and the retailer who sold the product, and the Act treats them differently. The manufacturer bears the primary liability, while a non-manufacturing seller is generally responsible only in narrower circumstances, such as its own negligence, its own express warranty, or where the manufacturer can't be brought before the court (RCW 7.72.040). The Act also limits how long a product remains the basis for a claim through its useful-safe-life rule: harm caused more than twelve years after delivery is presumed to fall outside that life, though the presumption can be rebutted (RCW 7.72.060). We identify every responsible party and address the useful-safe-life and standards defenses manufacturers raise.
Proving the case and the recovery
Product liability cases are won on expert proof and lost without it. We work with engineers, designers, and industry specialists to establish the defect and connect it to the injury, and we pursue the manufacturer's own design records, testing data, complaint history, and any recalls, which often reveal what the company knew. Causation is contested in nearly every case, so the technical proof has to be solid. On damages, Washington places no cap on a victim's recovery (Sofie v. Fibreboard), so we document the full extent of the harm, including future medical care and lost capacity. Like other injury claims, a product case must generally be filed within three years (RCW 4.16.080), subject to when the injury and its cause were discovered.
Sixty years representing Pacific Northwest individuals and families, with a trial group prepared to fund the engineering experts and sustained discovery a product case against a major manufacturer demands. These are resource-intensive fights, and we take the ones where a real defect caused a serious injury.
We fund the expert and discovery fight.
Product cases require engineers, testing, and hard-fought discovery into a manufacturer's records. We commit the resources these cases need, because that's what it takes to prove a defect against a company built to deny one.
We know the statute, not just the injury.
The Product Liability Act frames every claim, from which theory fits to the useful-safe-life and seller-liability defenses. We build the case within that framework from day one, which is where less-experienced product claims falter.
We measure the whole harm.
A defective product can cause a lifetime of consequences, and Washington places no cap on the recovery. We document the full medical, economic, and human cost so the compensation matches the injury.
The attorneys behindthe work.
Our business and corporate attorneys handle this work alongside our litigation team, so you have coverage whether your matter stays transactional or becomes something more.
What clientsask us first.
What makes a product defective under Washington law?
Washington's Product Liability Act recognizes a few ways a product can be not reasonably safe: a defect in its design, a flaw in how a particular unit was manufactured, inadequate warnings or instructions, or a failure to live up to an express warranty (RCW 7.72.030). A design defect affects every unit; a manufacturing defect affects the one that failed. Which category applies shapes the proof and the experts. We evaluate the product, the injury, and the available records to determine whether a defect claim is supportable and under which theory.
Can I sue the store that sold the product, or only the manufacturer?
Usually the manufacturer is the primary target. Under the Act, a non-manufacturing seller, like a retailer or distributor, is generally liable only in narrower situations: its own negligence, its own express warranty, or where the manufacturer is insolvent or otherwise can't be brought before the court (RCW 7.72.040). That said, naming the seller can matter, especially if the manufacturer is out of business or overseas. We map the whole supply chain and pursue every party the law allows, so an available defendant exists to answer for the harm.
Is there a deadline to bring a product liability claim?
Yes, two kinds. The general limitations period requires filing within three years, typically from when you discovered or should have discovered both the injury and its cause (RCW 4.16.080). Separately, the Act's useful-safe-life rule presumes that a product causing harm more than twelve years after it was delivered has outlived its safe life, though that presumption can be overcome with the right evidence (RCW 7.72.060). Both timelines matter, so an older product doesn't automatically bar a claim, but it does raise an issue we address head-on. Early evaluation is important.
How do you prove a product was defective?
Almost always with expert engineering and industry testimony, supported by the manufacturer's own records. We retain specialists to examine the product, identify the defect, and explain how it caused the injury, and we pursue the company's design files, testing data, prior-complaint history, and any recalls or safety notices, which frequently show what the manufacturer knew. Preserving the actual product is critical, so if you've been injured, keep the item and don't alter it. The combination of independent expert analysis and the maker's internal documents is what proves these cases.
Is there a limit on what I can recover?
Not in Washington. The state's Supreme Court struck down the cap on noneconomic damages as unconstitutional (Sofie v. Fibreboard), so there's no statutory ceiling on a product liability recovery here. What you can recover depends on the severity and permanence of the injury and the losses you can document: economic losses like medical care and lost earnings, and noneconomic losses for pain, disability, and reduced quality of life. We build the damages case to capture all of it, particularly the future costs of a lasting injury.
I still have the product that injured me. What should I do with it?
Keep it, and don't repair, alter, or discard it. In a product case the item itself is the central piece of evidence, and its condition at the time of the injury can make or break the claim; throwing it out or having it fixed can destroy the proof and even give the defense a spoliation argument. Photograph it, store it safely, and preserve any packaging, manuals, and receipts as well. Then have the potential claim evaluated promptly, because both the evidence and the legal deadlines are time-sensitive.
Recentarticles.
Product liability representation for Pacific Northwest individuals and families injured by defective and dangerous products.
Oseran Hahn P.S. · 11225 SE 6th St, Suite 100 · Bellevue, WA 98004
This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this page does not create an attorney-client relationship.