Derived from the Lohrmann decision, the test requires proof that the plaintiff worked with or near the defendant's product on a regular basis over an extended period in proximity to where the product was used.
It functions as a threshold sufficiency standard rather than a precise formula.
Alternative Names:
Lohrmann Test, Frequency Regularity Proximity
Why it Matters?
This test is the principal defense against liability based on minimal or speculative contact, and it is why product identification testimony receives such close attention. A witness who recalls seeing a defendant's product on a jobsite once, or who cannot place it in the plaintiff's work area, generally fails the standard. States that have rejected the test in favor of substantial factor analysis produce materially different outcomes on identical evidence.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What does the test require?
Do all states apply it?
