October 29, 2026

By: Alyssa M. Dedola

An alleged product failure may be the beginning of a product-liability case—but it is not necessarily the end of the comprehensive liability analysis. Product liability defendants must always be cognizant of the distinction between attempting to prove that a product malfunctioned and establishing that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s control. For example, in Wang v. Maserati North America, Inc., New Jersey plaintiffs alleged that a Maserati caused a fire that substantially damaged their home. Their theory relied, in significant part, on evidence concerning the origin of the fire within the vehicle’s engine compartment. But establishing where a fire originated does not, standing alone, establish why it occurred or demonstrate the existence of a legally cognizable product defect.

That distinction is particularly significant under the New Jersey Products Liability Act (“NJPLA”). A plaintiff must establish not merely that the product was involved in an accident, but that the product contained a defect and that the defect was a proximate cause of the alleged injury. Where the alleged defect concerns the design, manufacture, or operation of a complex mechanical or electrical system, those propositions frequently require competent expert testimony.

Though non-precedential, the Wang decision illustrates the importance of scrutinizing the entire evidentiary chain. An expert may try to identify the probable origin of a fire without being able to reliably establish that the component was defectively designed or manufactured. For manufacturers, this distinction can be critical at the dispositive motion stage. Rather than accepting a plaintiff’s theory that a product’s involvement in an accident necessarily establishes defect and causation, defendants should examine each inferential step leading up to that conclusion. If the theory ultimately depends on speculation—particularly regarding the alleged defect, its existence at the time of sale, or its causal relationship to the injury—there may be a substantial basis for challenging the claim before it reaches a jury.

In New Jersey product-liability litigation, product failure, product defect, and causation are separate propositions—and plaintiffs are required to produce evidence supporting each one.