Insight

Product Liability in 3D

How will liability issues evolve as product liability lawsuits begin to surface involving 3D-printed products?

Product Liability in 3D
SB

Stephen G.A. Myers and Kelly E. Brilleaux

June 30, 2016 12:00 AM

If you believe the news, 3D printing (also known as additive manufacturing) will change virtually every aspect of your life in the next three to five years. News articles suggest that everything from a four-year-old’s next favorite toy to the prescription medicines that we take to the replacement parts needed for our cars will be 3D-printed in the near future. Some have argued that 3D printing will impact manufacturing on the same scale that the personal computer affected the office environment. One open question, however, that companies must begin to evaluate is how corporate exposure and liability issues will evolve as product liability lawsuits begin to surface involving 3D-printed products.

TRADITIONAL MANUFACTURING AND THE APPLICABLE LEGAL PARADIGM

In a traditional manufacturing environment, mass production is the norm. Customization of products is a challenge because often an entire manufacturing and quality system must be reconfigured to accommodate the type of variation needed for customization.

It is from this traditional environment that product liability law developed and upon which product liability theories of recovery are predicated. Products are uniform, mass-produced, and based on a single design as captured in the manufacturing specifications. Liability theories are stated within this paradigm. For example, the Restatement (Third) of Torts describes theories of recovery based on whether a product deviated from a manufacturing specification (manufacturing defect), whether the risks associated with the product’s design specifications exceeded the benefits (design defect), and whether the product required a specific warning to be used in a safe manner (inadequate warning).

The paradigm is also premised on the idea that manufacturers tend to be larger corporate entities that have resources to research, design, manufacture, and often sell the products directly to consumers. These separate-but-related activities tend to be performed by the same entity, the “manufacturer.” This centralization of this activity also supports an underlying premise of product liability law that a “manufacturer” is in the best position to ensure that safe products reach the marketplace.

WHY DOES 3D PRINTING ALTER THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE?

In theory, 3D printing has the potential to reduce an entire manufacturing facility into a single 3D printer that might range in size from a desk to a desktop. “Manufacturing” then becomes as easy as hitting a button from within computer-aided-design (CAD) software after the product has been digitally designed. Not unlike paper printers, computer software then communicates the required output to a 3D printer, which “manufactures” the tangible product. There are a variety of methods in which 3D printers operate, but all tend to involve the depositing of material, layer by layer until the final product is achieved.

Fundamental differences between additive manufacturing and traditional manufacturing are cost and dexterity. No longer is a large company’s capital investment or expansive resources needed to manufacture a product, nor is there a significant, incremental cost to generate a customized product.

HOW MIGHT THE TECHNOLOGY CHANGE THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK?

Two aspects of additive manufacturing are likely to have the most significant impact on product liability law: 1) the mass customization of products, and 2) the inevitable disassociation of product design, manufacturing, and sales.

» Mass Customization
As mentioned, product liability law is predicated on a mass-production environment. In that setting, manufacturing specifications are typically uniform, and, thus, it is relatively straightforward to evaluate whether a product complies with its manufacturing specifications. Likewise, a risk-benefit analysis of an overarching design (as defined by product specifications) is possible among a broad population of users to determine whether a particular design is “defective.”

A major advantage of 3D printing is its ability to generate customized products for specific needs. But product liability law has difficulties in these situations. For example, it is not clear how a design-defect theory works in the customized-product setting. If a person is injured by a customized product, the risks will always appear to outweigh the benefit. There is no broader population of users available to demonstrate the principle that widespread benefits outweigh certain risks that occurred under particular circumstances. Moreover, the manufacturing specifications themselves become murky. And evidentiary and spoliation issues begin to arise regarding whether a customized product manufacturer should have a duty to preserve files and software related to every customized product that it makes.

» The Fracture of Design and Manufacturing
While a single manufacturer has historically been responsible for both the design and the manufacture of a product, 3D printing makes a disassociation of these activities more likely. Individual engineers can perform design work on computer platforms and simply sell the computer model to anyone who owns a 3D printer. This raises the issue of which “manufacturer” is responsible under product liability law if an injury occurs. Further, many corporations, such as UPS, are now offering 3D-printing services. But when someone inevitably is injured by a product that is designed by a third party but printed by UPS, does UPS become the responsible “manufacturer” because it printed the product, notwithstanding the fact that UPS likely knew nothing about the design or safety profile of the product? Is UPS now responsible for providing adequate warnings to the end user, as a traditional “manufacturer” would be? These sorts of permutations are endless and are likely to begin to surface in litigation as 3D printing becomes more widespread.

CONCLUSIONS

The preceding issues have yet to be addressed by a majority of courts—our research reveals only one decision addressing liability for a 3D-printed product: the Invisalign orthodontic system. But the case focused on allegations of misrepresentation regarding the effectiveness of the system, as opposed to more product-oriented allegations, the sort that we have raised here.

Despite a dearth of legal authority on the subject, there are commonsense steps that corporate manufacturers should keep in mind when venturing into these untested waters:

  1. Ask in-house or external counsel about the potential ramifications of new business ventures employing additive manufacturing, and consider whether the new venture could subject the company to a new type of exposure, such as strict product liability.
  2. Re-evaluate hold-harmless and indemnity agreements with vendors and component-part suppliers when additive manufacturing is being used by any entity.
  3. Examine all types of corporate insurance to determine whether additive manufacturing is the subject of any exclusions or special treatment.
  4. Ensure that company employees and engineers are monitoring regulatory and trade organization activities on the subject—and updating company practices and protocols accordingly.(1)

The technology is exciting and likely to have an impact on industry and the associated legal landscape, but the age-old saying remains applicable: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

---------------------

(1) For example, the FDA recently issued a guidance on the use of additive manufacturing with prescription medical devices entitled “Technical Considerations for Additive Manufactured Devices.” Likewise, the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) held a symposium on the subject of additive manufacturing in May of 2016. ASTM is actively exploring how to implement standards in the area, which will undoubtedly appear in litigation once disseminated.

Trending Articles

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard: The Best Lawyers Honorees Behind the Litigation


by Gregory Sirico

Best Lawyers takes a look at the recognized legal talent representing Johnny Depp and Amber Heard in their ongoing defamation trial.

Lawyers for Johnny Depp and Amber Heard

The Real Camille: An Interview with Johnny Depp’s Lawyer Camille Vasquez


by Rebecca Blackwell

Camille Vasquez, a young lawyer at Brown Rudnick, sat down with Best Lawyers CEO Phillip Greer to talk about her distinguished career, recently being named partner and what comes next for her.

Camille Vasquez in office

Announcing The Best Lawyers in The United Kingdom™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms from the United Kingdom.

The Best Lawyers in The United Kingdom 2023

Announcing The Best Lawyers in France™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms from France.

Blue, white and red strips

Education by Trial: Cultivating Legal Expertise in the Courtroom


by Margo Pierce

The intricacies of complex lawsuits require extensive knowledge of the legal precedent. But they also demand a high level of skill in every discipline needed to succeed at trial, such as analyzing technical reports and deposing expert witnesses.

Cultivating Legal Expertise in the Courtroom

Announcing The Best Lawyers in Germany™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms from Germany.

Black, red and yellow stripes

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers® in the United States


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers listed in the 28th Edition of The Best Lawyers in America® and in the 2nd Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America for 2022.

2022 Best Lawyers Listings for United States

Announcing The Best Lawyers in Belgium™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms from Belgium.

Black, yellow and red stripes

What If Johnny Depp and Amber Heard Had a Premarital Agreement?


by John M. Goralka

Oh, the gritty details we’re learning from the latest court battle between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. This unfortunate airing of dirty laundry may have been avoided with a prenup. Should you think about getting one yourself?

What If Johnny Depp & Amber Heard Had Prenup?

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers™ in France


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms, including our inaugural Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch recipients.

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers™ in France

Choosing a Title Company: What a Seller Should Expect


by Roy D. Oppenheim

When it comes to choosing a title company, how much power exactly does a seller have?

Choosing the Title Company As Seller

We Are Women, We Are Fearless


by Deborah S. Chang and Justin Smulison

Athea Trial Lawyers is a female owned and operated law firm specializing in civil litigation, catastrophic energy, wrongful death and product liability.

Athea Trial Law Female Leadership and Success

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers™ in Germany


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms, including our inaugural Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch recipients.

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers™ in Germany

What the Courts Say About Recording in the Classroom


by Christina Henagen Peer and Peter Zawadski

Students and parents are increasingly asking to use audio devices to record what's being said in the classroom. But is it legal? A recent ruling offer gives the answer to a question confusing parents and administrators alike.

Is It Legal for Students to Record Teachers?

U.K. Introduces Revisions to Right-to-Work Scheme and Immigration Rules


by Gregory Sirico

Right-to-Work Scheme and Immigration Rules in

Famous Songs Unprotected by Copyright Could Mean Royalties for Some


by Michael B. Fein

A guide to navigating copyright claims on famous songs.

Can I Sing "Happy Birthday" in Public?