§1116.2. Definitions. — Inbound Citations

(d) During one of the 24-month periods defined in § 1116.2(a), each of the three actions results in either a final settlement involving the manufacturer or in a court judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

(b) If a manufacturer has filed a section 37 report within one of the 24-month periods defined in § 1116.2(a), the manufacturer must also report the information required by section 37(c)(1) for any subsequent settlement or judgment in a civil action that alleges that the same particular model of the product was involved in death or grievous bodily injury and that takes place during the same 24-month period. Each such supplemental report must be filed within 30 days of the settlement or final judgment in the reportable civil action.

(b) Section 37(c)(1) requires a manufacturer or importer (hereinafter “manufacturer”) to include in a section 37 report a statement as to whether a civil action that is the subject of the report alleged death or grievous bodily injury. Furthermore, under section 37(c)(2), a manufacturer may specifically deny that the information it submits pursuant to section 37 reasonably supports the conclusion that its consumer product caused a death or grievous bodily injury, and may also include any additional information that it chooses to provide. In view of the foregoing, the reporting obligation is not limited to those cases in which a product has been adjudicated as the cause of death or grievous injury or to those settled or adjudicated cases in which the manufacturer has satisfied itself that the product was the cause of such trauma. Rather, when the specific injury alleged by the plaintiff meets the definition of “grievous bodily injury” contained in § 1116.2(b) of this part, the lawsuit falls within the scope of section 37 after settlement or adjudication. The manufacturer's opinion as to the validity of the allegation is irrelevant for reporting purposes. The category of injury alleged may be clear from the face of an original or amended complaint in a case or may reasonably be determined during pre-complaint investigation, post-complaint discovery, or informal settlement negotiation. Conclusory language in a complaint that the plaintiff suffered grievous bodily injury without further elaboration raises a presumption that the injury falls within one of the statutory categories, but is insufficient in itself to bring the suit within the ambit of the statute, unless the defendant manufacturer elects to settle such a matter without any investigation of the underlying facts. A case alleging the occurrence of grievous bodily injury in which a litigated verdict contains express findings that the injury suffered by the plaintiff did not meet the statutory criteria is also not reportable. Should a manufacturer believe that its product is wrongly implicated in an action, the statute expressly incorporates the mechanism for the manufacturer to communicate that belief to the Commission by denying in the report the involvement of the product or that the injury in fact suffered by the plaintiff was not grievous bodily injury, despite the plaintiff's allegations to the contrary. In addition, the statute imposes stringent confidentiality requirements on the disclosure by the Commission or the Department of Justice of information submitted pursuant to sections 37(c)(1) and 37(c)(2)(A). Moreover, it specifies that the reporting of a civil action shall not constitute an admission of liability under any statute or common law or under the relevant provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act. In view of these safeguards, the reporting of lawsuits alleging the occurrence of death or grievous injury should have little adverse effect on manufacturers.

(a) The obligation rests with the manufacturer of a product to determine whether a reasonable basis exists to conclude that a product that is the subject of a settled or adjudicated lawsuit is sufficiently different from other similar products to be regarded as a “particular model” under section 37 because it is “distinctive.” To determine whether a product is “distinctive”, the proper inquiry should be directed toward the degree to which a product differs from other comparable products in one or more of the characteristics enumerated in section 37(e)(2) and § 1116.2(c) of this part. A product is “distinctive” if, after an analysis of information relating to one or more of the statutory characteristics, a manufacturer, acting in accordance with the customs and practices of the trade of which it is a member, could reasonably conclude that the difference between that product and other items of the same product class manufactured or imported by the same manufacturer is substantial and material. Information relevant to the determination of whether a product is a “particular model” includes:

(1) The description of the features and uses of the products in question in written material such as instruction manuals, description brochures, marketing or promotional programs, reports of certification of products, specification sheets, and product drawings.

(2) The differences or similarities between products in their observable physical characteristics and in components or features that are not readily observable and that are incorporated in those products for safety-related purposes;

(3) The customs and practices of the trade of which the manufacturer is a member in marketing, designating, or evaluating similar products.

(4) Information on how consumers use the products and on consumer need or demand for different products, such as products of different size. In analyzing whether products are different models, differences in size or calibration afford the basis for distinguishing between products only if those differences make the products distinctive in functional design or function.

(5) The history of the manufacturer's model identification and marketing of the products in question;

(6) Whether variations between products relate solely to appearance, ornamentation, color, or other cosmetic features; such variations are not ordinarily sufficient to differentiate between models.

(7) Whether component parts used in a product are interchangeable with or perform substantially the same function as comparable components in other units; if they are, the use of such components does not afford a basis for distinguishing between models.

(8) Substantial variations in price arising directly from the characteristics enumerated in section 37(e)(2) for evaluating product models may be evidence that products are different models because their differences are distinctive. Price variations imposed to accommodate different markets or vendors are not sufficient to draw such a distinction.

(9) These factors are not controlling in identifying “particular models”.

(10) Expert evaluation of the characteristics of the products in question, and surveys of consumer users or a manufacturer's retail customers.