2023 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 52 - Civil Actions
Chapter 925 - Statutory Rights of Action and Defenses
Section 52-572q. - Liability of product seller due to lack of adequate warnings or instructions.

Universal Citation: CT Gen Stat § 52-572q. (2023)

(a) A product seller may be subject to liability for harm caused to a claimant who proves by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the product was defective in that adequate warnings or instructions were not provided.

(b) In determining whether instructions or warnings were required and, if required, whether they were adequate, the trier of fact may consider: (1) The likelihood that the product would cause the harm suffered by the claimant; (2) the ability of the product seller to anticipate at the time of manufacture that the expected product user would be aware of the product risk, and the nature of the potential harm; and (3) the technological feasibility and cost of warnings and instructions.

(c) In claims based on this section, the claimant shall prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that if adequate warnings or instructions had been provided, the claimant would not have suffered the harm.

(d) A product seller may not be considered to have provided adequate warnings or instructions unless they were devised to communicate with the person best able to take or recommend precautions against the potential harm.

(P.A. 79-483, S. 6; P.A. 90-191, S. 2.)

History: P.A. 90-191 amended Subsec. (d) to include warnings or instructions devised to communicate with the person best able to “recommend” precautions.

Cited. 187 C. 363; 192 C. 280; 200 C. 562; 203 C. 156; 204 C. 399. Sec. 52-572m et seq., 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; 226 C. 282; 228 C. 905; 229 C. 213; Id., 500; 230 C. 12; 232 C. 915; 233 C. 732; 236 C. 27; Id., 769. Product liability law discussed. 241 C. 199. 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. Cause of action exists under negligence or failure-to-warn provisions of section based on medical device manufacturer's alleged failure to report adverse events to regulator following approval of device, or comply with regulators' postapproval requirements. 342 C. 103.

Cited. 1 CA 48; 3 CA 230; 8 CA 642; 16 CA 558; 30 CA 664; 31 CA 824; 32 CA 373; judgment reversed, see 229 C. 829; 36 CA 601; 39 CA 635; 41 CA 555; Id., 856; 46 CA 18; Id., 699.

Cited. 40 CS 120; 41 CS 179; 42 CS 153; 44 CS 510.

Subsec. (b):

Subdiv. (2) recognizes that a sophisticated buyer may not need same level of warning as an ordinary buyer would. 76 CA 137.

Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Connecticut may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.