The Product Liability Lawyers: the premier guide to recommended product liability attorneys, practice area news and legal insights.
Product liability is a doctrine that gives plaintiffs a cause of action if they suffer harm from a defective product. This doctrine can fall under negligence, but it is generally associated with strict liability, meaning that defendants can be held liable regardless of their intent or knowledge. Claims can involve design defects, manufacturing faults or inadequate warnings. Cases range from vehicles and household goods to medical devices and industrial machinery. Product liability lawyers have two distinct roles:
- Defending manufacturers and businesses accused of creating, designing or selling a product that causes harm to the public.
- Representing individuals and businesses bringing claims against parties responsible for defective products that have caused harm.
We assist business directors, in-house counsel, and individuals by providing a concise and up-to-date guide to leading product liability lawyers across the country. Our research covers all 50 states, with featured attorneys being selected based on the results of peer nominations, in-depth research, awards and client feedback. Our selection process is independent and it is not possible to request entry into the guide.
Alongside attorney recommendations, we publish legal insights on relevant court decisions, emerging litigation trends and developments affecting businesses and consumers nationwide.
Featured Attorney
Tiffany M. Alexander - Pennsylvania
Tiffany Alexander is a Partner in the Berwyn, Pennsylvania office of Nelson Mullins. She practices in the areas of product liability, personal injury, and complex civil litigation on behalf of corporate clients and product manufacturers. Tiffany serves as national an [...]
Latest News & Legal Insights
No Defect, No Duty: California Supreme Court Reaffirms The Bedrock Of Products Liability Law
In Gilead Tenofovir Cases, the California Supreme Court held that drug manufacturers do not owe a duty of care to users of a nondefective drug when deciding whether and when to develop and market a potentially safer alternative. We previously covered Gilead’s appeal of lower court decisions permitting novel negligence claims to proceed in a 23,000 case coordinated proceeding. In a 6-1 decision on August 3, 2026, the California Supreme Court reversed and rejected a “duty-to-innovate” […]