Rather than focus on the behavior of the manufacturer (as in negligence), strict liability claims focus on the product itself. Under strict liability, the manufacturer is liable if the product is defective, even if the manufacturer was not negligent in making that product defective.

No matter which theory is used in a failure-to-warn defect case, proximate cause is still a critical component that must be proven in all products liability suits, including failure-to-warn defect cases.12 Plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) the defendant manufacturer, supplier, or seller knew or should have known of the dangers related to the product’s intended use; (2) the product’s user/consumer was reasonably unaware of these dangers; (3) the defendant manufacturer, supplier, or seller failed to exercise reasonable care to notify the user/consumer of the product’s unsafe condition or the facts which make the product prone to be dangerous; and (4) the risk and degree of harm was large enough to justify that a warning should have been provided.13 Moreover, to win a failure-to-warn defect case, plaintiffs must also convince the fact-finder that heeding the warning would have prevented the injury.14 Accordingly, failure-to-warn defect cases may be predicated on “(1) the absence of a warning, (2) the inadequacy of the warning given, or (3) the absence or inadequacy of instructions in the safe use of the product.”15