Please note: We appreciate your interest in claims for 3M Earplugs. We are no longer taking 3M case submissions at this time. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions about any other legal issues, recalls, faulty products, dangerous drugs, or defective medical equipment.
If your hearing has been damaged as the result of defective 3M Combat Arms version 2 earplugs to protect your hearing, you can file a product liability lawsuit against 3M.
A product liability claim can be founded on strict liability, negligence, or breach of warranty of fitness. In the case of consumers who endured hearing loss due to 3M’s defective combat earplugs, the claim would be based on negligence.
Negligence means that the defendant should have taken reasonable care to keep you from harm or danger, and they failed in this responsibility.
To establish your case of product liability based on negligence, your lawyer will need to prove that your case meets the following four criteria:
As the manufacturer of the earplugs that you purchased, 3M owed you a legal duty to make the product safe. When the company manufactured defective hearing protection devices, falsified test results, and sold the devices to consumers like you with no mention of the defect, 3M breached its duty of care.
You suffered hearing loss or damage, and your medical diagnosis, coupled with findings conveyed in the government’s filing against 3M, will go toward proving that your injury resulted from 3M’s breach of duty.
When a company’s products are labeled as defective, this description can apply to any of three types of product defects:
The CAEv2 suffers from a significant design flaw. The earplug stems were designed too short, meaning they did not properly seal or protect your hearing as they were intended to do.
The earplugs also suffered from marketing defects, as the devices did not feature any warnings as to the dangers of improper fitting. Although the included instructions suggest rolling back the end flanges to enable better insertion, they do not state that taking this step is mandatory for the product to work effectively.
Within the product liability area of tort law, strict liability can apply to a defendant when their product causes injury to the plaintiff. The information made available from the government’s legal action against 3M supports strict product liability claims against the manufacturer.
As legal counsel to the plaintiff, your lawyer has the burden of proof to prove beyond a “preponderance of the evidence” that 3M’s dual-ended earplugs are defective. This just means that it is more likely than not that your claim is true and accurate.
Your case against 3M will benefit from the research conducted by the government and by the other plaintiffs who have filed before you.
When you hire a lawyer to represent you in your case against 3M, do so carefully. Consider taking the time to look at the attorney’s track record with settlements and verdicts. Evaluate how client-focused they are and whether they work on contingency.
A contingency-based law firm, like Zanes Law, gets paid only when you get paid. This is what makes our firm especially driven to get results.
Contact Zanes Law today for your free case review if your hearing loss is the result of defective 3M combat earplugs. We will do everything from A to Z to ensure you receive compensation for your hearing loss or damage in a 3m defective earplugs lawsuit. Call us at 866-499-8989 for a free consultation.
Receive a Free, No-Obligation, Case Evaluation Now