Similar Incident Evidence Depositions in Product Liability Cases

Depositions of Similar Incident Evidence

An in-depth investigation and other similar incident evidence involving a faulty item through depositions is essential in an auto product liability case. Also referred to as OSI, evidence in support of other similar injury, accident, or incident evidence may be obtained through deposition testimony. This may be from others who were involved in similar accidents. Evidence of other similar incidents demonstrates to the jury the extent of the automobile defect. Expert testimony, marketing materials, product analysis and testing, design drawings, and other evidence may help a jury properly understand the flawed product and its real-world effects on consumers.

What is Product Liability?

When an individual is harmed while using any type of product as intended, they may be entitled to financial compensation for their losses through a product liability claim. This type of case may be brought against the product’s manufacturer and other parties of interest in product sales or distribution. In the State of California, an individual or entity that designs, manufactures, or sells a flawed product is strictly liable for the harm caused to consumers of that product. With the assistance of an experienced attorney, an injured party may be compensated for economic and non-economic damages.

All evidence that is relevant to the matter is admissible. In most product liability cases, the key issue is the admissibility and availability of other similar incident (OSI) evidence. If a particular issue or fact is disputed, OSI evidence may become relevant if it serves as valid proof of that issue or fact. Courts exercise caution when it comes to the admission of OSI evidence in product liability cases as it may create complexity for the jury and unwarranted bias. The admission or denial of OSI evidence is up to the trial judge and their discretionary decision.

Importance of Other Similar Incident Evidence Depositions

For either party to use other similar incident evidence at trial, there must be a comprehensive discovery strategy. This will require the plaintiff’s counsel to identify which of the opposing party’s products were designed in a similar manner and should be included in the OSI search, establish how similarity of incidents is constituted, and determine an appropriate manufacturing period. Defense counsel will do everything in their power to prevent the admission of OSI evidence. In every case where similar injury, accident, or incident evidence may arise, the result may be significantly affected by the court’s ruling on the matter.

Various factors will influence admissible evidence in discovery and at trial. While the OSI evidence presented in the case does not have to be identical, it must be established as “substantially similar” to the matter at hand. Other similar incident evidence is generally in the form of other crashes. This will present how the product failure occurred from a common and underlying flaw in the design plan or manufacturing process. This evidence may be collected through accident databases, incident reports, and consumer complaints.

Some of the strong and other similar incident evidence may be retrieved through depositions. An individual who had actual involvement in the other collision can provide testimony through a deposition. Firsthand knowledge will provide insight into what occurred and the harm the other person endured due to the faulty product. Deposition testimony from parties involved in other accidents can corroborate consumer complaints and incident reports. This insight will help a jury understand the nature of the faulty product and its real-world effects on actual consumers.

Notice of a Flawed Product

The admissibility of other similar injury, incident, or accident evidence in an auto product liability case is granted to demonstrate that the opposing party should have been aware or should have exercised reasonable care when made aware of the product flaw. Other individuals harmed by the faulty product may offer evidence through deposition testimony. The common reason for admission of similar incident evidence is the defendant’s knowledge or notice of an alleged product flaw. The imposition of punitive damages may be justified through OSI evidence and proof of wanton misconduct.

The admission of OSI evidence may also be utilized to demonstrate that the opposing party was negligent. Evidence of negligence must prove that the incident, accident, or injury was foreseeable. Conversely, OSI evidence is often utilized by plaintiffs to demonstrate the severity of the unreasonable dangers, the opposing party’s ability to correct a known product flaw, insufficient safety for intended product usage, and product strength. Other similar incident evidence may also be admitted through the testimony of expert witnesses.

Product Liability Lawyer in Sacramento

If you or a family member has been injured in a recent motor vehicle collision, you may be entitled to financial compensation for your losses. Whether the incident occurred because of a negligent driver or defective equipment in your vehicle, the knowledgeable Sacramento product liability lawyers at AutoAccident.com can help you secure the financial recovery you deserve. With decades of combined experience protecting the rights of injured parties, we know what it takes to obtain successful results for clients. Call today for free, friendly advice on your potential case at (916) 921-6400 or (800) 404-5400.

Image Credit: Via Pexels – ekaterina-bolovtsova

:ds [cs 862]

Contact Information