§ 52-572m — Product liability actions. Definitions.

Connecticut § 52-572m

• Jurisdiction: Connecticut
• Title 52: Civil Actions
• Ch. 925: Statutory Rights of Action and Defenses

Text

As used in this section and sections 52-240a, 52-240b, 52-572n to 52-572q, inclusive, and 52-577a: (a) “Product seller” means any person or entity, including a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor or retailer who is engaged in the business of selling such products whether the sale is for resale or for use or consumption. The term “product seller” also includes lessors or bailors of products who are engaged in the business of leasing or bailment of products. (b) “Product liability claim” includes all claims or actions brought for personal injury, death or property damage caused by the manufacture, construction, design, formula, preparation, assembly, installation, testing, warnings, instructions, marketing, packaging or labeling of any product. “Product liability claim” shall include, but is not limited to, all actions based on the following theories: Strict liability in tort; negligence; breach of warranty, express or implied; breach of or failure to discharge a duty to warn or instruct, whether negligent or innocent; misrepresentation or nondisclosure, whether negligent or innocent. (c) “Claimant” means a person asserting a product liability claim for damages incurred by the claimant or one for whom the claimant is acting in a representative capacity. (d) “Harm” includes damage to property, including the product itself, and personal injuries including wrongful death. As between commercial parties, “harm” does not include commercial loss. (e) “Manufacturer” includes product sellers who design, assemble, fabricate, construct, process, package or otherwise prepare a product or component part of a product prior to its sale to a user or consumer. It includes a product seller or entity not otherwise a manufacturer that holds itself out as a manufacturer.

Legislative History

(P.A. 79-483, S. 1; 79-631, S. 106, 111; P.A. 82-160, S. 242; P.A. 84-509, S. 1; 84-546, S. 120, 173.) History: P.A. 79-631 deleted definition of “clear and convincing evidence”, appearing as Subdiv. (f) in original act; P.A. 82-160 deleted incorrect statutory references; P.A. 84-509 amended definition of “harm” to provide that as between commercial parties, “harm” does not include commercial loss; P.A. 84-546 deleted reference to Sec. 38-370o as section to which definitions apply; (Revisor's note: The reference in the opening sentence to Secs. “52-572n to 52-572r” was changed editorially by the Revisors to Secs. “52-572n to 52-572q” to reflect the repeal of Sec. 52-572r by P.A. 93-228, S. 34, 35). Cited. 187 C. 363; 192 C. 280; 200 C. 562; 203 C. 156; 204 C. 399. Product liability act abrogated common law indemnification principles in this area. 205 C. 694. Cited. 207 C. 575; Id., 599; 210 C. 189; 212 C. 462; Id., 509; 213 C. 136; 216 C. 65. Loss of consortium claim is not barred in action brought pursuant to product liability act, Sec. 52-572m et seq. 226 C. 282. Cited. 229 C. 213; Id., 500; 232 C. 559; 233 C. 732; 236 C. 769; 241 C. 199; 243 C. 168. “Commercial loss” does not encompass costs incurred by a commercial party in repairing or replacing a defective product or in repairing property damage caused by a defective product; “damage to property” is not limited to property owned by the party seeking to recover. 291 C. 224. Modified consumer expectation test, recognized in 241 C. 199, is the primary strict product liability test; ordinary consumer expectation test is reserved for those limited cases in which product fails to meet consumer's legitimate, commonly accepted minimum safety expectations. 321 C. 172. Cited. 1 CA 48; 3 CA 230; 8 CA 642; 11 CA 391; 16 CA 558; 30 CA 664; 31 CA 824; 36 CA 601; 39 CA 635; 41 CA 555; Id., 856; 46 CA 18; Id., 699. Sidewalk constructed using form and pour method does not constitute a “product” under section. 66 CA 681. Cited. 36 CS 137; 37 CS 735. Legislative meaning attributed to words “claimant” and “harm” are sufficiently broad to permit an award of punitive damages in connection with a product liability claim involving only damage to property. 39 CS 269. Cause of action alleging that electricity is a product and a large surge of electricity was a defective condition in defendant's product was not improper as a matter of law and doctrine of strict liability is applicable. 40 CS 120. Cited. 41 CS 179; Id., 411; 42 CS 153; 44 CS 510. Discussion of strict tort liability on sellers of used goods; no distinction between sellers of new and used products. 45 CS 531. The two parts of the “actionable harm” test are plaintiff's discovery “that he has been injured” and “that defendant's conduct caused that injury”. 46 CS 235. Subsec. (a): Defendant hospital is not a “product seller” under section because it did not actively advertise the medical product for sale to patients and the transaction with the patient was primarily for services, rather than the sale of a medical product. 340 C. 93.