Metal-On-Metal Hip Replacement Design Defects
A metal-on-metal hip replacement consists of a metal ball and a metal socket implanted into a patient with hip failure. The dangers of a metal-on-metal hip replacement is that often the metal ball and socket parts rub together, releasing metal ions, and causing severe pain and injury. Metal-on-metal hip replacements often need to be replaced with 2-3 years, as opposed to the expected hip replacement life of 15 years.
If you or a loved one was injured due to a faulty metal-on-metal hip replacement, contact an experienced metal hip replacement attorney in Raleigh for a free initial consultation. Our experienced and compassionate attorneys understand both the financial, and health, burdens that this defective device can cause a family. An attorney will be able to advise you on any damages you may be entitled to and work with you to gain them. Damages are awarded against a manufacturer if the jury finds that the device was faulty when it was designed.
What are Design Defects?
A design defect occurs when the company or the manufacturer designs a product that is not safe, and unfit for public use or consumption, or, in the case of medical devices, placement in the human body. It is not that the company or manufacturer necessarily knew about the failures of the device and failed to warn the public about it, but the device in and of itself is faulty because of the way it was designed.
Arguing for Manufacturer Liability
While design defect cases can be more difficult to argue and thus, possibly harder to win than a failure to warn case, there have been some successful arguments that have been made. It is the design of the metal ball and socket that causes these failure rates to be so high in some of the verdicts. There is even evidence to suggest that manufacturers were aware of the design defects.
When arguing a design defects case, it should be demonstrated that the product or design was faulty as designed, and that is the reason for the failure that ultimately led to a person’s injury. It also must be shown there was no intermediary who had access to the product, who could have tampered with it, or changed it to absolve the manufacturer for liability for the defect in the design.
During the course of discovery, the attorney may learn that there were other prototypes or other models that the company worked with during research and development, but for whatever reason, those were not pursued further. One of those reasons the manufacture decided against a successful device could be that the company undertook a cost benefit analysis and came to the conclusion that while this product might be safer, it is going to cost more money, so it is not worth going ahead with that design. An attorney can use this to help buttress their argument for manufacturer liability.