Effects of Warning Quality and Expert Testimony on Allocation of Responsibility for Consumer Product Accidents

Abstract

The purpose of this experiment was to examine the effects of warning quality and human factors expert testimony on decision making in consumer product injury cases. Participants read summaries of consumer product accidents, where a no, poor or good warning was present. In two conditions, human factors (HF) expert testimony was included, giving an opinion on the quality of the product warnings. Participants allocated percentages of responsibility to the manufacturer, retailer, and consumer, as if they were jury members assigned to the cases. Results showed differences in allocations of responsibility among conditions. Manufacturers were allocated more responsibility when there was no warning on the product or when a poor warning was present and a HF expert testified that a better warning could have been used. Allocations did not differ between poor and good warning conditions, possibly because participants viewing poor warnings lacked knowledge of the way a good warning would look. The results have implications for warning design, the use of HF expert witnesses, and jury decision making.