When consumers purchase products, they do so trusting that they will be appropriately made to perform their intended duties. They do not expect the products and goods that they purchase to harm them. Yet, every day, consumers are injured by defective products that fail to work in an adequate manner. When these incidents occur, various parties may be held liable for the damage their products cause.
The details of the Electrolux product liability case
Electrolux is a manufacturer of home appliances, selling such goods as refrigerators, stoves, and dishwashers to customers across the globe. Customers from various states have alleged that the company’s dishwashers are defective, spontaneously igniting into flames and causing damage to their homes. They are seeking to hold the company legally responsible for the damage by filing claims within the courts under the following legal theories:
- Product liability. Product liability claims seek to hold manufacturers and merchants accountable for the harms that their defective products cause to innocent consumers and other users of their goods.
- Consumer protection violations. Consumer protection laws are designed to protect consumers from the fraudulent business practices of merchants.
- Breach of implied warranty of merchantability. When a product is sold, it generally comes with an unspoken promise that it will properly work for its intended use. If it does not, the manufacturer may be found to have breached this implied warranty.
One of the lead plaintiffs in the case is a woman from Illinois who claims that Electrolux first received notification about the defective dishwashers in 2007. She asserts that the company instituted recalls in Australia and the United Kingdom, but continued selling the models to customers within the United States without any warning or offer to replace the defective units with ones that worked properly.
In an effort to have the some of the lawsuits dismissed, Electrolux asserted that the one-year warranty provided with the product created a time limit for filing a breach of implied warranty claim. However, Judge John Z. Lee ruled against the motion to dismiss, stating the warranty was not an essential aspect of the plaintiffs’ claims for compensation.
This is the second win for Illinois plaintiffs in this case. In October of last year, the same judge denied attempts by Electrolux to escape claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which are both aimed at protecting consumers from the deceptive actions of businesses and merchants.
At Gainsberg Law, P.C., we understand how upsetting it is when the products you buy cause serious injuries. For legal assistance you can trust, please phone us at 312-313-1621 or complete our contact form to schedule an appointment with an experienced Chicago defective products attorney.