3D printers and printing are raising new questions in the realm of product liability law. Traditionally, if you purchase a product from a manufacturer and are injured by the product you have the right to sue the manufacturer for damages. But Stanford law professor Nora Freeman Engstrom isn’t sure that’s the case when it comes to 3D printing.
Under current law, product liability applies to commercial sellers. If you were to buy an item that was 3D printed by a neighbor, however, they wouldn’t necessarily be liable for damages. According to Engstrom, “[A] person injured by a home-printed product would likely only be left with a negligence-based lawsuit. Negligence focuses on proving that the manufacturer, distributor or seller of the product was careless – a higher hurdle [to prove in court].”
Following any significant technological breakthrough, legal scholars, practitioners, and policymakers must consider how the innovation meshes with—or poses challenges to—our existing laws and system of governance.
As more individuals make in their garages, products that are complex, sophisticated, and dangerous, these hobbyist inventors will start selling some products they create, and certain individuals who purchase their creations will, unfortunately but inevitably, sustain injuries.
Under current “strict liability” product law, a person who is injured by a defective product can win a lawsuit without necessarily showing that the maker or distributor of the product was negligent.
“This means,” she said, “if you fall ill from eating tainted peanut butter you purchased at, say, Wal-Mart, you can sue Wal-Mart for your injuries – and you can prevail in that lawsuit even if Wal-Mart used all possible care in the peanut butter’s selection, storage and sale.”
On the other hand, Nora Freeman Engstrom, an associate professor, the University of Pennsylvania Law said, a person injured by a home-printed product would likely only be left with a negligence-based lawsuit. Negligence focuses on proving that the manufacturer, distributor or seller of the product was careless – a higher hurdle.
Casual sellers, such as a housewife who makes and sells jam or a child who makes and sells lemonade, fall outside the scope of product liability laws. Engstrom said that hobbyist 3-D inventors, who print products in their garages and on their kitchen countertops, are arguably casual, rather than commercial sellers – so strict product liability laws likely won’t apply.
