You rent a lift, a saw, or a car for the weekend, or you buy a used machine from a dealer to save money, and the equipment fails and injures you. When you look for someone to hold responsible, you hit a wall of assumptions: it was secondhand, it was rented, it was sold “as is,” so surely no one can be sued. Those assumptions are usually wrong. A claim over a used product — a piece of secondhand equipment or a rental that hurt the person using it — is often very much alive in Massachusetts, because the businesses that sell used goods and rent equipment can be held to the same core product-safety obligations as any other seller.
The reason is that Massachusetts product liability runs on the implied warranty of merchantability, and that warranty reaches companies that are in the business of selling or leasing goods, not just the original manufacturer of a brand-new item. A used-equipment dealer, a rental company, or an equipment lessor that puts a dangerous machine into a customer’s hands can face liability when that machine causes injury — and the “as is” language they rely on to escape often does not do what they claim, at least where a personal injury is concerned. Understanding how these rules apply to secondhand and rented goods is what keeps an injured person from walking away from a real claim.
What follows is how used-product liability works in Massachusetts: whether you can sue a used-equipment seller or rental company, how commercial lessors of vehicles and equipment are treated, and why an “as is” disclaimer often cannot bar an injury claim. This is general information, not advice about a specific case. Because this is one corner of the broader subject of product injuries, our overview of what a product liability case involves is a natural companion to this one.
Can you sue a used-equipment seller or rental company?
The starting point is that the implied warranty of merchantability — the backbone of Massachusetts product liability — is not limited to sellers of new goods.
The warranty reaches merchants in used goods
Under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 106, section 2-314, a warranty that goods are merchantable — fit for their ordinary purposes — is implied in a contract of sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. A business that regularly sells used equipment is a merchant in those goods, so the implied warranty can attach to what it sells, secondhand or not. The fact that a machine was previously owned does not place it outside the warranty; a used-equipment dealer that sells a dangerously defective machine to a customer can be liable when that machine causes injury, just as a seller of new goods would be.
What merchantability means for a used item
Of course, a used item is judged as a used item. Merchantability for secondhand goods takes account of their age, wear, and the reasonable expectations a buyer has for an item of that description and price. A buyer of a well-worn used machine does not get the same expectation of newness as a buyer of a factory-fresh one. But that adjustment is not a free pass: a used item still has to be reasonably safe for its ordinary use, and a used-equipment seller that puts out a machine with a dangerous defect — a missing guard, a failing brake, a hidden crack — can be liable even though the item was sold secondhand. The standard bends for wear; it does not disappear for danger.
Who along the way can be responsible
Because the warranty runs through the chain of distribution, an injury from a used machine can implicate more than one party. The original manufacturer may still be liable if the defect was original to the product; the used-equipment dealer may be liable as the merchant that sold it; and where a component or a repair introduced the danger, still other parties may share responsibility. An injured person is therefore not necessarily limited to a single defendant simply because the item was previously owned. Identifying everyone who put the dangerous machine into the stream of commerce is part of building the claim.
Commercial lessors of vehicles and equipment
Rental and leasing companies are not manufacturers, but a company in the business of putting equipment into users’ hands can be held to product-safety obligations much like a seller.
Leasing is a commercial supply of goods
A company whose business is renting cars, tools, lifts, or heavy equipment is supplying goods to the public for use, even though the transaction is a lease rather than a sale. Massachusetts extends product-safety principles to those in the business of leasing goods, treating a commercial lessor much as it treats a seller for purposes of the responsibility to supply equipment that is reasonably safe. A rental company that hands a customer a machine with a dangerous defect is not insulated simply because it rented rather than sold the item; putting dangerous equipment into use is the conduct the law reaches, whether the paper says sale or lease.
The lessor’s own duties of inspection and maintenance
A commercial lessor also has responsibilities that flow from repeatedly renting the same equipment. A business that rents machines and vehicles is expected to maintain and inspect them so that what it hands to the next customer is reasonably safe, and a rental company that ignores maintenance, skips inspections, or rents out equipment it knew or should have known was dangerous can be liable in negligence as well as under warranty principles. The lessor is often the party best positioned to catch a developing defect between rentals, and the law expects it to do so.
The rental context can widen the claim
Because a rented machine passes through the lessor’s hands between users, an injury can arise from an original defect, from the lessor’s failure to maintain or inspect, or from both, and the claim can reach the manufacturer, the lessor, and anyone who serviced the equipment. The rental relationship, far from insulating the company, often adds a defendant — the lessor whose inspection and maintenance duties were breached — on top of any claim against the maker. Sorting out which failures contributed is part of valuing a rental-equipment case.
Merchant sellers versus private sellers
One threshold point shapes who can be pursued in warranty: the implied warranty of merchantability is imposed only on a seller who is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. A used-equipment dealer, an auto dealer’s used lot, and a rental company all qualify, because they are in the business of dealing in the goods they supply. A one-time private seller — a neighbor who sells an old lawnmower — generally is not a merchant and generally is not liable in warranty for a later injury. That does not leave a privately bought product entirely outside the law, because a manufacturer’s original defect can still reach the maker through the chain, and ordinary negligence principles can apply to anyone who creates a danger; but the business seller is the party against whom the warranty runs most cleanly.
As-is disclaimers on used goods
The defense sellers and rental companies reach for most often is the “as is” clause — and against a personal-injury claim, Massachusetts law usually strips it of its power.
Why “as is” does not waive injury claims
An “as is” clause is an attempt to disclaim the implied warranties, and ordinarily a seller can limit warranties that way in a commercial deal. But Massachusetts draws a firm line when the harm is a bodily injury. Under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 106, section 2-316A, any language a seller or manufacturer uses to exclude or modify the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, or the remedies for their breach, is unenforceable with respect to injury to the person. In plain terms, a business cannot use an “as is” clause — or any similar disclaimer — to escape liability for a personal injury caused by a defective product. The statute makes such a waiver of injury liability unenforceable, and it cannot itself be waived by agreement.
Consumer goods get added protection
The same statute gives consumers broader protection still. It provides that a seller or manufacturer of consumer goods and services cannot enforce any language that tries to exclude or modify the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness at all, or to cut off the consumer’s remedies for their breach. So for consumer transactions — the ordinary rental or secondhand purchase by an individual — a disclaimer of the implied warranty is generally unenforceable, injury or not. The “as is” sticker on a used consumer item does far less than the seller hopes.
What the clause can and cannot do
None of this means every “as is” clause is meaningless in every context; the statute has specific contours, and business-to-business dealings involving organizations can be treated differently for allocating certain risks. But for the injured individual — the person hurt by a defective used or rented product — the key point is that a disclaimer cannot ordinarily be used to bar a personal-injury claim. Accepting an “as is” clause as the end of the matter, without testing it against the statute, is exactly the mistake that leaves a viable claim unpursued.
Proving a defect versus ordinary wear
The hardest question in a secondhand or rental case is usually not who supplied the item but whether what failed was a genuine defect or simply the expected consequence of age and use. Massachusetts law draws that line, and how it is drawn often decides the case.
Wear is expected; a dangerous defect is not
Merchantability for a used item is measured against what a reasonable buyer would expect of a product of that age, description, and price, so a secondhand machine is not required to perform like a new one. Faded paint, a worn seat, reduced efficiency, and cosmetic age are the ordinary incidents of a secondhand machine and do not make it unmerchantable. What the standard does not tolerate is a condition that makes the item dangerous for its ordinary use — brakes that cannot stop a used vehicle, a guard missing from a resold saw, a frayed cable on a rented lift. The distinction is between an item that is merely old and an item that is unsafe, and it is the second that supports a claim.
The role of expert examination
Because the defense in these cases so often is “it was just worn out,” an engineering or safety expert’s examination of the actual product is usually what separates a normal-wear story from a defect. An expert can distinguish a part that failed because it reached the end of its service life from one that failed because it was never safe, was altered, or was returned to service without a repair that any competent inspection would have required. That examination depends entirely on the equipment being preserved, which is why securing the machine or vehicle before it is repaired, scrapped, or re-rented is so important.
Spoliation when a rental item disappears
Rented and leased equipment is especially prone to vanishing as evidence, because a lessor’s ordinary practice is to repair and re-rent an item as quickly as possible. When a defendant that knew of a claim allows the key product to be altered or destroyed, Massachusetts courts can impose spoliation sanctions, including barring the responsible party from offering its own evidence about the item’s condition or allowing the jury to draw an adverse inference. Prompt written notice to the seller or rental company to preserve the equipment therefore protects the claim twice: it keeps the proof available and creates consequences if the item is lost.
The same urgency applies to the records that surround the equipment. Rental agreements, delivery and pickup tickets, maintenance logs, inspection checklists, and prior complaint or repair histories all tend to exist only in the supplier’s files, and they often reveal whether a known problem was left unaddressed before the machine reached the injured person. Requesting that those records be preserved at the same time as the equipment keeps the full picture available and prevents a defendant from later reconstructing events from memory alone.
When rented or used equipment injures a worker
A large share of these injuries happen on the job, where the machine that failed was rented for a project or bought secondhand to save money. That setting adds a second track of recovery rather than replacing the product claim.
The product claim sits alongside workers’ compensation
An employee hurt by defective equipment at work generally receives workers’ compensation from the employer regardless of fault, and that comp remedy is usually the exclusive claim against the employer itself. It does not bar a claim against a different company that supplied the defective machine. A suit against the used-equipment dealer, the rental company, or the manufacturer is a third-party claim, outside the comp bar, and it can reach damages that workers’ compensation does not pay, including full lost earnings and compensation for pain and suffering. The rented or secondhand character of the equipment is often what makes that outside defendant available.
Rental to a jobsite widens the field of defendants
When a rental company supplies equipment to a worksite, it brings its own duties to deliver a machine that is safe, properly maintained, and accompanied by adequate instructions and warnings. A lift, generator, or power tool rented in unsafe condition, or rented without the guarding or instructions a reasonable supplier would provide, exposes the rental company to liability separate from anything the employer did. Because the injured worker keeps comp against the employer and gains a product and negligence claim against the supplier, the rental relationship tends to enlarge the set of responsible parties rather than shrink it.
Deadlines and defenses to expect
A secondhand or rental claim faces the same timing rules and many of the same defenses as any injury case, and both are worth understanding before a seller’s denial is taken at face value.
The three-year deadline
A personal-injury claim in Massachusetts, including one built on a defective product, generally must be filed within three years of the injury. Because a used-product case can involve several defendants — a manufacturer, a dealer, a lessor, a repairer — and because identifying each of them takes investigation, the practical time to act is shorter than three years. Waiting also risks the loss of the very equipment the case depends on. Preserving the product and starting the work of naming defendants early is the surest way to keep every option open.
Comparative fault and product misuse
Sellers and rental companies commonly argue that the injured person misused the equipment or was careless, and Massachusetts applies comparative negligence: a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by their share of fault and barred only if that share exceeds the defendant’s. Ordinary use of a machine for its intended purpose is not misuse, and a foreseeable mistake by a user does not excuse a dangerous defect. These arguments affect how damages are apportioned far more often than they defeat a claim outright, and they do not change the core point that a business that supplied dangerously defective used or rented equipment can be held responsible.
What used product liability means for your claim
For an injured person, the lesson is that secondhand and rented equipment is not the dead end it is often assumed to be.
The claim usually survives the secondhand label
Because the implied warranty reaches merchants in used goods and commercial lessors, and because an “as is” disclaimer generally cannot bar a personal-injury claim, an injury from a used or rented product frequently supports a viable case. Whether the equipment was bought secondhand from a dealer, rented from a company, or leased for a job, the businesses that put it into your hands can be answerable when it was dangerously defective. The secondhand or rental character of the transaction changes some of the details, but it rarely closes the door.
The recovery a successful claim supports
Where a defective used or rented product causes injury, the recovery follows ordinary injury principles and can include medical expenses, lost income and earning capacity, and compensation for pain, suffering, and the lasting effects of the injury. Used industrial machines, rented lifts and power equipment, and leased vehicles can all cause severe or catastrophic injuries, and a crash in a defective rental or leased vehicle can support a claim against the rental company and others in addition to any at-fault driver.
Why the defendants must be sorted out
Because a used or rented item may have passed through a manufacturer, a dealer, a lessor, and a repair shop, identifying which parties are responsible — and refusing to accept an “as is” clause as a bar — is central to a full recovery. The rental or resale context often adds defendants rather than removing them, and sorting out who supplied, maintained, or serviced the dangerous equipment is what allows an injured person to hold each responsible party to account.
Protecting a used-product claim
Because these claims depend on the equipment itself and the businesses that handled it, protecting one means preserving the product and identifying every company in the chain.
Preserving the equipment and the paperwork
The failed machine or vehicle is the central evidence, and preserving it — along with the rental agreement, the bill of sale, the “as is” language, and any maintenance or inspection records — is essential. A rented item, in particular, tends to go straight back to the lessor after an injury, where it can be repaired or re-rented before an expert examines it, so acting quickly to secure it is critical. The very “as is” document the seller relied on becomes useful evidence once it is measured against the statute that limits it.
Mapping the businesses in the chain
Alongside preservation, the task is to identify every company that supplied, maintained, or serviced the equipment: the manufacturer, the used-goods dealer or rental company, and any repair or service provider. Each may bear responsibility for a different failure, and none should be assumed out of the case because the item was secondhand. The rental or maintenance records often reveal who last inspected the machine and whether a known problem was ignored, which can be decisive.
When to call a Boston injury lawyer
If a used or rented product injured you and you have been told the sale was “as is” or that a secondhand item cannot be the basis of a claim, that conclusion is worth testing against the law, which reaches merchants in used goods and commercial lessors and generally will not let a disclaimer bar a personal-injury claim. A lawyer can preserve the equipment and the paperwork, evaluate the “as is” language against the statute, and pursue the seller, the rental company, the manufacturer, and any service provider responsible; these cases are handled on contingency, so there is no fee unless there is a recovery. Our Boston personal injury attorneys handle product-liability, rental-equipment, and defective-product claims across the Commonwealth and in nearby communities including Quincy and Cambridge, as reflected across our practice areas. If secondhand or rented equipment hurt you, you can reach out to have every option evaluated.
Reviewed and Approved By
This article was reviewed for legal accuracy by Daniel J. Larson, the founding attorney of Larson Law and a Massachusetts-barred personal injury lawyer in Boston. He represents individuals and families harmed by negligence in serious-injury matters arising from motor-vehicle collisions, unsafe property conditions, and other preventable incidents. Attorney Larson works litigation-first, developing each case through detailed investigation, discovery, and expert analysis with the expectation that it may be tried. Before founding the firm, he defended doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare providers in malpractice litigation at a Boston firm — experience that informs how he anticipates the way insurers and defense counsel approach a claim. He is a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys.
Frequently asked questions
Can I sue a company that sold me a used machine that hurt me?
Often, yes. Massachusetts product liability runs on the implied warranty of merchantability, which applies to a seller who is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind — and a business that regularly sells used equipment is such a merchant. A used-equipment dealer that sells a dangerously defective machine can be liable when it causes injury. A used item is judged as a used item, accounting for its age and wear, but it still has to be reasonably safe for ordinary use.
Can I sue a rental company for a defective rented machine or vehicle?
Yes, in appropriate cases. A company in the business of leasing cars, tools, or equipment supplies goods to the public and is held to product-safety obligations much like a seller. It also has its own duties to maintain and inspect what it rents, so a rental company that provides a defective machine, or that skips maintenance and inspection, can be liable both under warranty principles and in negligence. The rental relationship often adds a defendant rather than removing one.
The sale was “as is.” Doesn’t that mean I can’t sue?
Usually not, at least for a personal injury. Under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 106, section 2-316A, any language a seller or manufacturer uses to exclude or modify the implied warranties, or the remedies for their breach, is unenforceable with respect to injury to the person. So an “as is” clause generally cannot bar a claim for a bodily injury caused by a defective product, and for consumer goods a disclaimer of the implied warranty is broadly unenforceable. The clause does far less than the seller hopes.
Is a secondhand product held to the same safety standard as a new one?
Not exactly. Merchantability for a used item accounts for its age, wear, and the reasonable expectations of a buyer of an item of that description and price, so a well-worn used machine is not expected to be as good as new. But the standard bends only so far: a used item still has to be reasonably safe for its ordinary use, and a seller that puts out a machine with a dangerous defect can be liable even though it was sold secondhand.
Who can I sue after a used or rented equipment injury?
Potentially several parties. Because warranty liability runs through the chain of distribution, an injury from used or rented equipment can implicate the original manufacturer if the defect was original, the used-goods dealer or rental company that supplied it, and any repair or service provider that introduced or ignored the danger. Identifying every company that supplied, maintained, or serviced the equipment — and preserving the equipment and paperwork — is how the responsible parties are held to account.
Results Disclaimer: Past case results, settlements, and verdicts mentioned on this website do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case. Every case is unique and depends on its own facts and legal issues.