Find Product Liability Lawyers Near You in Taunton, MA

Product liability cases in Massachusetts are almost always handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning the lawyer receives a percentage of the recovery only if the case is successful. Standard contingency fees range from 33 percent of the gross recovery if the case settles before a lawsuit is filed, up to 40 percent if the case proceeds to trial or appeal. In addition to the fee, clients are responsible for case costs, which can include expert witness fees ($300 to $1,000 per hour), engineering analysis ($5,000 to $50,000), medical record retrieval ($500 to $2,000), and deposition costs ($2,000 to $10,000). These costs are typically advanced by the lawyer and deducted from the final settlement or judgment. Some lawyers may charge a flat fee for initial consultation, but most offer a free initial meeting.

It is important to note that case costs can be substantial in product liability litigation, particularly when multiple experts are needed or when the product must be tested in a laboratory. In complex cases involving defective medical devices or pharmaceuticals, costs can exceed $100,000 before trial. Clients should discuss the fee agreement in detail before signing, including how costs are handled if the case is unsuccessful. Some lawyers may require a retainer for costs, while others absorb them entirely. This information is general and does not constitute legal advice. Each case is unique, and you should consult with a qualified attorney to understand the specific costs and fee arrangements that apply to your situation.

Product liability law in Taunton, Massachusetts, addresses the legal responsibility of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers when a consumer product causes harm. The core legal theories include defective design, where the product is inherently unsafe even when made correctly; manufacturing defects, where a specific unit deviates from the intended design; failure to warn, where the product lacks adequate instructions or warnings about foreseeable risks; and breach of warranty, where the product does not meet express or implied promises of safety. Massachusetts law recognizes both strict liability and negligence as bases for claims. Under strict liability, a plaintiff does not need to prove the manufacturer was careless, only that the product was defective and the defect caused the injury. Negligence requires showing the manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care in design, production, or warnings. These distinctions matter because strict liability often simplifies proof, but negligence may allow recovery for pure economic loss in some circumstances.

Massachusetts has specific laws that shape product liability cases. The state adopted strict liability for product defects through the landmark case *Back v. Wickes Corp.* (1978) and codified it in the Massachusetts Product Liability Act (M.G.L. c. 93B). The statute of limitations for filing a product liability claim is three years from the date of injury or discovery of the injury. However, Massachusetts also has a statute of repose for product liability claims: generally, no action may be brought more than 12 years after the product was first sold or leased. This means if a product is 13 years old at the time of injury, the claim is barred regardless of when the injury occurred. Joint and several liability applies in Massachusetts, meaning a defendant found even partially at fault can be held responsible for the entire damages award if other defendants are insolvent. This rule can significantly affect settlement strategies and the choice of defendants to name in a lawsuit. Additionally, Massachusetts follows a modified comparative negligence rule, where a plaintiff cannot recover if they are found to be more than 50 percent at fault for their own injuries.

Common product liability cases in Taunton involve defective vehicles subject to national recalls, such as faulty airbags, defective brakes, or steering column failures that cause accidents. Dangerous drugs and medical devices are another frequent category, including recalled blood pressure medications linked to cancer risks, defective hip implants, or transvaginal mesh that causes internal injuries. Defective household products range from exploding pressure cookers and faulty space heaters to childrens toys with lead paint or choking hazards. Industrial equipment failures, such as malfunctioning saws, presses, or forklifts, often cause severe workplace injuries. Food contamination cases arise when improperly processed or stored foods cause illnesses like salmonella or E. coli outbreaks. Each type of case requires specific evidence, such as recall notices, FDA adverse event reports, or Consumer Product Safety Commission data, to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturers control.

Proving a product liability claim in Massachusetts requires showing four elements: the product was defective, the defect existed when the product left the defendants control, the defect caused the injury, and the plaintiff suffered damages. Expert testimony is almost always necessary to establish the defect and causation. For example, a mechanical engineer might testify about a design flaw in a power tool, while a medical expert explains how a defective drug caused a specific injury. Preserving the product as evidence is critical; the product must be kept in its original condition, stored securely, and not altered or repaired. Photographs, receipts, and purchase records help establish the chain of custody. Recall records from the manufacturer or government agencies like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can strengthen a case by showing the manufacturer knew of the defect but failed to act. In Massachusetts, failure to preserve evidence can result in a spoliation instruction to the jury, which allows them to infer the evidence would have been unfavorable to the party who lost it.

When hiring a product liability lawyer in Taunton, clients should expect a contingency fee arrangement, typically ranging from 33 to 40 percent of the recovery. If a case goes to trial or appeal, the percentage may increase to 40 or 45 percent. Case costs can be significant, often running from $10,000 to $100,000 or more, depending on the complexity. These costs include expert witness fees, engineering analysis, medical record retrieval, deposition costs, and filing fees. In many arrangements, the lawyer advances these costs and deducts them from the settlement or judgment. For cases involving defective drugs or medical devices, the lawyer may recommend joining a multidistrict litigation (MDL) rather than filing an individual lawsuit. MDL consolidates many similar cases from across the country before one federal judge for pretrial discovery and bellwether trials. Individual suits may proceed faster and allow for more tailored evidence, but they also carry higher risk and cost. The decision between MDL and individual suit depends on the strength of the case, the defendants resources, and the clients goals.

Class actions and MDL are two common mechanisms for handling mass product liability claims. In a class action, a group of plaintiffs with similar injuries sues as a single entity, and a settlement or judgment applies to all class members unless they opt out. Bellwether trials are used in MDL to test the strength of claims by trying a few representative cases; the outcomes often guide settlement negotiations for the remaining cases. Settlement funds in large MDLs, such as those for defective medical devices or pharmaceuticals, can total billions of dollars, with individual payouts varying based on injury severity, exposure duration, and other factors. Opting out of a class action or MDL allows a plaintiff to pursue an individual lawsuit, which may result in a higher recovery but also carries more risk and expense. Pros of joining a class action include lower individual costs and the ability to pool resources, while cons include less control over the case and potentially smaller individual awards. A skilled lawyer can help a Taunton resident evaluate whether joining a mass action or pursuing an individual claim is the better path.