Rhode Island Product Liability Lawyer

Every day, consumer products, from children’s toys to prescription drugs, are expected to be safe when used as intended. When they are not, Rhode Island law allows injured consumers to seek compensation from the companies that designed, manufactured, or sold the dangerous item. This article explains the legal framework that governs product liability claims in Rhode Island, outlines practical steps for protecting your rights, and details how our personal injury attorneys at Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers can help you pursue justice. Nothing here is legal advice; for guidance on your specific situation, consult an attorney.

Rhode Island recognizes three primary paths to recovery in product cases. A single lawsuit often pleads all three theories in the alternative.

• Strict Liability in Tort. In strict-liability claims, the injured person does not have to prove carelessness—only that the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous when it left the defendant’s control, and that the defect caused the injury. Rhode Island first adopted this modern rule in Ritter v. Narragansett Electric Co. (1966) and later codified it in R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-29. Strict liability applies to manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers alike.
• Negligence. A negligence theory focuses on conduct. Plaintiffs must show that the defendant owed a duty of reasonable care in designing, building, inspecting, or warning about the product, that the duty was breached, and that the breach caused foreseeable harm. Because negligence requires proof of a specific lapse, such as a shortcut in quality control, discovery often centers on internal corporate documents and expert analysis.
• Breach of Warranty. The Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in Rhode Island at R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 6A-2-313 through 6A-2-318, imposes express and implied warranties that goods are fit for their ordinary purpose and conform to any affirmations of fact made by the seller. Breach‐of‐warranty claims can be powerful because they allow recovery of certain economic losses that might be barred in tort, and may extend to anyone “reasonably expected to use, consume, or be affected by the product,” even without privity of contract.

A plaintiff must establish that the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous. Rhode Island recognizes three defect categories.

• Manufacturing Defects. A manufacturing defect arises when a particular unit diverges from the intended design—think a cracked bicycle frame or a batch of medication tainted by contamination. Because the design itself may be sound, liability turns on proof that the individual item was substandard when it left the factory.
• Design Defects. With a design defect, every item produced according to the blueprint is dangerous. Courts apply a “risk-utility” balancing test: did the foreseeable danger outweigh the cost and feasibility of a safer alternative design? Expert engineering testimony is essential, and Rhode Island follows the federal Daubert standard for scientific reliability.
• Failure-to-Warn or Marketing Defects. Even a well-designed product can be hazardous if users are not told how to avoid dangers that are not obvious. A claim may arise from inadequate instructions, missing warnings, or marketing that encourages unsafe uses. Post-sale duties to warn exist when the manufacturer learns of hazards after distribution and can reach users in a reasonable manner.

Personal injury or wrongful-death claims in Rhode Island must be filed within three years of the injury or death (R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14). The discovery rule can toll the period until the plaintiff knew or should have known that the product caused the harm—crucial in cases involving latent injuries from pharmaceuticals or toxic substances.

Rhode Island also enforces a ten-year statute of repose for most product cases under § 9-1-13.1. Regardless of when an injury occurs, no lawsuit may be brought more than ten years after the product was first purchased for use or consumption, unless the defendant committed fraud or intentionally concealed the defect. Timeliness is, therefore, a threshold issue in any evaluation.

Product liability is intentionally broad. Parties that may share responsibility include:

• Manufacturers of parts and finished goods
• Assemblers that integrate multiple components
• Designers and engineering consultants
• Importers or distributors who place foreign goods into the U.S. stream of commerce
• Wholesalers and retailers that sell to the public
• Licensors whose brand names influence consumer reliance
• Corporate successors, if a merger or acquisition leaves no ongoing entity to sue

Rhode Island’s pure comparative-fault regime (§ 9-20-4) allows the court to apportion fault among multiple parties, including the plaintiff, without a bar to recovery unless the plaintiff is 100 percent at fault.

The plaintiff must connect the defect to the injury through competent evidence. This usually involves:

• Accident reconstruction or product inspection reports
• Testing data demonstrating how and why the product failed
• Medical expert testimony linking the mechanism of injury to the defect
• Epidemiological or toxicological studies in pharmaceutical and chemical exposure cases
• Corporate documents showing prior knowledge of hazards or cost-benefit analyses that ignored safety

Rhode Island permits the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in rare circumstances where the accident itself would not have occurred absent a defect, and the product was under the defendant’s exclusive control.

Defendants often argue that misuse, alteration, or failure to heed warnings caused the injury. Under Rhode Island’s pure comparative negligence rule, damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s share of responsibility but are not barred entirely unless that share reaches 100 percent. Other defenses include:

• Assumption of risk where the danger was obvious and voluntarily accepted
• State-of-the-art—the technology to eliminate the hazard did not exist when the product was made
• Pre-emption by federal regulations (e.g., FDA approval of prescription drugs)
• Economic loss doctrine limiting tort recovery for purely commercial losses unaccompanied by personal injury or property damage

A successful product liability plaintiff in Rhode Island may recover:

• Medical expenses—past and future
• Lost wages and diminished earning capacity
• Pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life
• Property damage
• Punitive damages will be awarded when clear and convincing evidence shows willful or reckless conduct.
• Wrongful-death damages (for eligible beneficiaries under § 10-7-1)
• Survival damages representing the decedent’s conscious pain between injury and death

Rhode Island does not impose statutory caps on compensatory or punitive damages in product cases.

Pharmaceutical and medical-device litigation often proceeds in federal court through multidistrict litigation, but Rhode Island substantive law may still govern claims for residents injured here. The learned-intermediary doctrine typically shifts the duty to warn from the manufacturer to the prescribing physician, yet liability can arise from inadequate labeling or failure to disclose post-marketing risks.

Food and beverage claims range from contaminated produce to mislabeled allergens. Rhode Island follows Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and imposes strict liability on food sellers for foreign objects or harmful pathogens.

Product lawsuits are evidence-intensive. To preserve critical proof:

• Secure and store the product in its post-accident condition. Do not alter or repair it.
• Document the scene with photographs or video.
• Collect purchase receipts, manuals, and packaging.
• Seek immediate medical evaluation to establish a causal record.

Once suit is filed in the Rhode Island Superior Court or federal district court, typical milestones include:

• Rule 26(f) conference and case-management order
• Written discovery and depositions of corporate representatives under Rule 30(b)(6)
• Motions to compel proprietary design data, often accompanied by protective orders
• Expert disclosures are subject to Daubert challenges on reliability and fit
• Mediation or judicial settlement conferences—the court may require alternative dispute resolution
• Jury trial where verdicts on liability and damages are rendered in special interrogatories

Because manufacturers vigorously defend their reputations, early retention of experts and aggressive discovery are paramount.

A federal recall or safety bulletin by agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), or Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can bolster a Rhode Island case by establishing that the product was recognized as dangerous. Recall evidence is generally admissible to show notice and feasibility of safety improvements, though not to prove negligence per se. Conversely, compliance with federal standards is persuasive but not dispositive; Rhode Island juries may still find a product unreasonably dangerous.

Businesses that suffer only financial harm—lost profits, repair costs, or diminished value—without associated personal injury or property damage must proceed under contract theories such as breach of warranty. Rhode Island courts apply the economic loss doctrine to bar tort recovery in such cases, channeling commercial disputes into the UCC’s remedial structure, which may include consequential damages if not effectively disclaimed.

• Seek medical care immediately and follow all treatment recommendations.
• Preserve the product and all packaging; if the item is large (e.g., a vehicle), secure it in a safe facility.
• Document everything—injury photographs, witness statements, incident reports, and serial or batch numbers.
• Avoid social-media posts that could be misconstrued as admissions or evidence of alternative causes.
• Contact an experienced product liability attorney before engaging with insurers or company representatives.

Prompt action is essential because time limits run quickly, and key evidence can disappear.

Our firm has spent decades standing up to global manufacturers on behalf of injured Rhode Islanders. We know how to:

• Assemble a multidisciplinary team of engineers, medical specialists, and economists to isolate the defect and calculate losses.
• Deploy forensic technology—CT scans, metallurgical testing, digital modeling—to recreate failures and demonstrate safer alternatives.
• Navigate complex insurance structures and indemnity agreements that can obscure true decision-makers.
• Litigate aggressively in both state and federal court, from initial preservation letters to trial, while simultaneously exploring strategic settlements that meet our clients’ goals.
• Advance all costs of the investigation and only collect a fee if we secure compensation; clients pay nothing up front.

Because we limit our caseload, every client receives direct attorney access and regular updates. Our commitment is not just to win cases but to force industry changes that prevent future injuries.

Defective products can upend lives in an instant, but Rhode Island law offers robust remedies through strict liability, negligence, and warranty theories. Success demands swift evidence preservation, deep technical expertise, and relentless advocacy against well-funded corporate defendants. Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers is ready to guide you through every stage, investigation, litigation, negotiation, and, if necessary, trial, so you can focus on healing while we focus on accountability.

Contact Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers today to schedule your free consultation and take the first step toward justice and fair compensation for your injuries. Call us for a free consultation at (617) 777-7777.