DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Rhode Island ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Rhode Island
DATE: [Date]
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
[General Counsel / Risk Management / Claims Representative]
[Manufacturer / Distributor / Retailer Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]
RE: PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Claimant: [Client Full Name]
Date of Incident: [Date]
Product: [Product Name, Model Number, Serial Number]
Manufacturer: [Manufacturer Name]
Purchase Date/Location: [Date / Retailer Name]
Claim Number: [If assigned]
Dear [Recipient Name]:
This firm represents [Client Name] in connection with serious personal injuries caused by a defective [Product Name] designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by your company. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement pursuant to Rhode Island law.
I. RHODE ISLAND-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Governing Law - Common Law Strict Liability
Rhode Island products liability claims are governed by common law strict liability based on Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, as adopted in Ritter v. Narragansett Electric Co., 283 A.2d 255 (R.I. 1971).
Key Elements for Strict Liability:
1. The defendant was a seller engaged in the business of selling the product;
2. The product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous;
3. The product reached the user without substantial change in condition;
4. The defective condition was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries; and
5. The plaintiff suffered damages.
See Buonanno v. Colmar Belting Co., 733 A.2d 712 (R.I. 1999).
B. Theories of Liability Recognized
Rhode Island recognizes the following products liability theories:
1. Strict Liability:
Under Rhode Island law adopting Section 402A, sellers engaged in the business of selling products are strictly liable for injuries caused by defective products. Ritter, 283 A.2d at 260.
2. Negligence:
Traditional negligence claims for negligent design, manufacture, inspection, or failure to warn. Guilbeault v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 84 F. Supp. 2d 263 (D.R.I. 2000).
3. Breach of Warranty:
Express and implied warranty claims under Rhode Island's UCC, R.I. Gen. Laws Sections 6A-2-313 through 6A-2-315. Privity is not required for personal injury claims.
C. Defect Standards
Rhode Island applies the following standards:
Consumer Expectations Test: The primary test in Rhode Island. A product is defective if it fails to meet the safety expectations of an ordinary consumer. Ritter, 283 A.2d at 260.
Risk-Utility Test: Also applied, particularly for design defects. Courts balance the product's utility against its risks, considering the availability of safer alternatives.
See Castrignano v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 546 A.2d 775 (R.I. 1988).
D. Statute of Limitations
Under R.I. Gen. Laws Section 9-1-14, the statute of limitations for personal injury actions is three (3) years from the date of injury.
Discovery Rule: Rhode Island applies the discovery rule; the limitations period may be tolled until the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury and its cause.
This claim arises from an injury that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].
E. Statute of Repose
Under R.I. Gen. Laws Section 9-1-13(b), a products liability action must be commenced within ten (10) years from the date of sale to the first purchaser or lessee.
Exception: This statute of repose does not apply to claims for personal injury caused by:
- Exposure to hazardous substances (asbestos, silica, etc.)
- Claims where the seller made fraudulent misrepresentations
The product at issue was sold on [Date], which is within the repose period.
F. Comparative Fault
RHODE ISLAND FOLLOWS PURE COMPARATIVE FAULT.
Under R.I. Gen. Laws Section 9-20-4, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but recovery is never completely barred regardless of the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
- Fault is apportioned among all parties
- Even if plaintiff is 99% at fault, they may still recover 1% of damages
- Product misuse may reduce but not bar recovery
Our client was not at fault: [Describe why client bears no or minimal fault]
G. Joint and Several Liability
Rhode Island follows joint and several liability for economic damages. Under R.I. Gen. Laws Section 9-20-4:
- Each defendant may be held liable for the full amount of damages
- Defendants may seek contribution from other tortfeasors
H. Punitive Damages
Punitive damages are available in Rhode Island upon proof of conduct that is:
- Willful
- Malicious
- Wanton
- Showing reckless disregard for the rights of others
Sherman v. McDermott, 329 A.2d 195 (R.I. 1974).
No Statutory Cap: Rhode Island does not have a statutory cap on punitive damages.
II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - SPOLIATION WARNING
YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this product and claim, including but not limited to:
Product-Related:
- [ ] The subject product and all component parts
- [ ] All exemplar products of the same make and model
- [ ] Design documents, specifications, and engineering drawings
- [ ] Manufacturing records for the subject product
- [ ] Quality control records and inspection reports
- [ ] Testing data and results (pre-market and post-market)
- [ ] Safety assessments and risk analyses
- [ ] FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) documents
- [ ] All versions of owner's manuals, instructions, warnings, and labels
Regulatory and Complaints:
- [ ] Communications with FDA, CPSC, NHTSA, or other regulatory agencies
- [ ] Consumer complaints involving this product
- [ ] Prior claims and lawsuits involving this product
- [ ] Recall notices and service bulletins
Rhode Island courts impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence. Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 756 A.2d 744 (R.I. 2000). Destruction of evidence may result in adverse inferences and other sanctions at trial.
III. THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT
A. Product Identification
| Product Information | Details |
|---|---|
| Product Name | [Full Product Name] |
| Manufacturer | [Manufacturer Name and Address] |
| Model Number | [Model Number] |
| Serial Number | [Serial Number] |
| Date of Manufacture | [Date, if known] |
| Lot/Batch Number | [If known] |
| Date of Purchase | [Purchase Date] |
| Retailer/Seller | [Retailer Name and Location] |
| Purchase Price | $[Amount] |
B. Chain of Distribution
| Entity | Role | Contact |
|---|---|---|
| [Manufacturer Name] | Manufacturer | [Address] |
| [Component Supplier] | Component Manufacturer | [Address] |
| [Distributor Name] | Distributor | [Address] |
| [Retailer Name] | Retailer/Seller | [Address] |
IV. THE DEFECT
A. Nature of Defect - Design Defect
Under Rhode Island law, a design defect exists when the product, as designed, fails to meet the safety expectations of the ordinary consumer or when the risks of the design outweigh its utility. Castrignano v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 546 A.2d 775 (R.I. 1988).
Consumer Expectations Test:
The ordinary consumer would expect that:
[Describe what consumer would expect]
The [Product Name] failed to meet these expectations because:
[Describe how product failed expectations]
Risk-Utility Analysis:
[Apply risk-utility factors]
The [Product Name] contains a design defect in that:
[Detailed description of design defect]
Alternative Safer Design:
A feasible alternative design existed that would have prevented this injury:
[Describe alternative design]
B. Nature of Defect - Manufacturing Defect
A manufacturing defect exists when the specific product departed from its intended design, making it more dangerous than intended. The product at issue:
[Describe manufacturing defect if applicable]
C. Nature of Defect - Failure to Warn
Under Rhode Island law, a manufacturer has a duty to warn of known dangers and dangers that should have been known through reasonable testing. Castrignano, 546 A.2d at 782.
Adequacy of Warnings:
A warning must be:
- Clear and understandable
- Convey the nature and extent of the danger
- Prominently displayed
- Adequate to inform the user how to avoid the danger
Learned Intermediary Doctrine: Rhode Island recognizes this doctrine for prescription drugs and medical devices. Castrignano, 546 A.2d at 783.
The warnings provided were inadequate because:
[Describe warning deficiencies]
V. THE INCIDENT
A. How the Injury Occurred
On [Date], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe what client was doing with the product]:
[Detailed narrative of the incident]
B. Foreseeable Use
Our client was using the product in a manner that was:
- [ ] Intended by the manufacturer
- [ ] Foreseeable by the manufacturer
- [ ] In accordance with provided instructions
C. No Comparative Fault
Our client exercised reasonable care at all times. Under Rhode Island's pure comparative fault system, even if some fault is attributed to our client, recovery is not barred. Our client bears no or minimal fault in this incident.
VI. LIABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Strict Liability Under Section 402A
All elements of Rhode Island strict liability are satisfied:
-
Defective Condition: The product contained a [design / manufacturing / warning] defect as described above.
-
Unreasonably Dangerous: The product failed to meet the safety expectations of an ordinary consumer.
-
Defect Existed When Product Left Defendant's Control: The defect was present at the time of sale.
-
Causation: The defect was a proximate cause of our client's injuries.
-
Damages: Our client has suffered substantial damages as detailed herein.
B. Negligence
Your company breached its duty of care by:
-
Negligent Design: Designing a product with an unreasonably dangerous characteristic when safer alternatives existed.
-
Negligent Manufacture: Failing to implement adequate quality control procedures.
-
Negligent Failure to Warn: Failing to provide adequate warnings of known dangers.
C. Breach of Warranty
Express Warranty (R.I. Gen. Laws Section 6A-2-313):
Your company expressly warranted that [describe warranty]. This warranty was breached.
Implied Warranty of Merchantability (R.I. Gen. Laws Section 6A-2-314):
The product was not fit for its ordinary purpose due to the defect.
VII. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF DEFECT
Evidence of your company's prior knowledge of this defect includes:
- [ ] [Number] prior complaints regarding this defect
- [ ] [Number] prior injuries from this defect
- [ ] Recall or service bulletins issued
- [ ] Internal documents acknowledging the defect
Such prior knowledge supports an award of punitive damages for willful, malicious, or wanton conduct.
VIII. INJURIES AND DAMAGES
A. Injuries Sustained
As a direct and proximate result of the defective product, our client sustained:
Physical Injuries:
- [ ] [Injury 1]
- [ ] [Injury 2]
- [ ] [Injury 3]
Surgeries and Procedures:
- [ ] [Surgery 1]
- [ ] [Surgery 2]
Permanent Conditions:
- [ ] [Permanent condition 1]
- [ ] [Permanent condition 2]
B. Medical Expenses
| Provider | Service | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| [Provider 1] | [Service] | $[Amount] |
| [Provider 2] | [Service] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
Future Medical Expenses: $[Amount]
C. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL LOST WAGES | $[Total] |
D. Non-Economic Damages
- Physical pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Disfigurement
- Loss of enjoyment of life
- Inconvenience
E. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| Disfigurement | $[Amount] |
| Emotional Distress | $[Amount] |
| Loss of Enjoyment of Life | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL COMPENSATORY DAMAGES | $[Total] |
F. Punitive Damages
Your company's conduct warrants punitive damages. Your company knew of the defect and acted with willful, malicious, or wanton disregard for consumer safety.
IX. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Based upon the clear liability of your company under Rhode Island law and the severe injuries suffered by our client, we hereby demand:
$[DEMAND AMOUNT]
This demand will remain open for forty-five (45) days from the date of this letter, expiring at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on [Expiration Date].
X. CONCLUSION
This case involves a defective product that caused serious injuries to our client. Your company is strictly liable under Rhode Island law. Under Rhode Island's pure comparative fault system, our client is entitled to full recovery reduced only by any percentage of fault attributable to our client, if any.
If this matter cannot be resolved, we are prepared to file suit in the Superior Court, [County] County, State of Rhode Island, and to pursue this matter through trial.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Rhode Island Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: [List]
cc: [Client Name]
[File]
RHODE ISLAND PRODUCTS LIABILITY PRACTICE NOTES
-
[ ] Pure Comparative Fault: Rhode Island is a pure comparative fault state - plaintiff's recovery is reduced but never barred by their fault percentage.
-
[ ] Statute of Repose: Rhode Island has a 10-year statute of repose from date of first sale. Verify product sale date.
-
[ ] Joint and Several Liability: Rhode Island maintains joint and several liability. Each defendant may be liable for full damages.
-
[ ] Consumer Expectations and Risk-Utility: Rhode Island uses both tests for determining defectiveness.
-
[ ] Expert Testimony: Required to establish defect and causation in most cases. Rhode Island follows Daubert standard.
-
[ ] Privity Not Required: For personal injury warranty claims, privity is not required.
-
[ ] Venue: Superior Court in county where defendant resides, where cause of action arose, or where plaintiff resides. R.I. Gen. Laws Section 9-4-4.
-
[ ] Economic Loss Rule: Rhode Island recognizes the economic loss doctrine - purely economic losses without physical injury are generally not recoverable in tort. Ramos v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 484 F. Supp. 2d 193 (D.R.I. 2007).
-
[ ] Small State Considerations: Rhode Island is a small jurisdiction; consider potential jury pool and judicial familiarity with products cases.
-
[ ] Innocent Seller Defense: Consider whether seller may have defense as innocent conduit in the chain of distribution.
Rhode Island products liability law is complex. This template must be reviewed and customized by a licensed Rhode Island attorney before use.