A 3D printer manifests an object by depositing thin layers of material—from plastic to resin, gold, chocolate, bone, marble, even living tissue—into contoured layers in a “bottom-up” building approach that creates a solid form without wasting resources. The more readily available materials for printers, however, may expose users to hazardous chemicals.

Research reported in a November 2013 article in Atmospheric Environment journal states that “many desktop 3D printers rely on heated thermoplastic extrusion and deposition, which is a process that has been shown to have significant aerosol emissions in industrial environments,” but lacks data on particle emissions from commercially available printers.

Many of these devices are sold without any exhaust or filtration activities and used in unfiltered indoor environments while emitting ultrafine particles known to be “acutely toxic” to mammals.

“Depending on state law, the 3d printer manufacturer and distributor may be liable for putting adequate warnings on the printing liquid and the actual printing machine,” says Knowles. “And if the ventilation system does not work correctly, the manufacturer of that product could also be held liable [in a toxicity claim for long-or short-term exposure].”

According to Knowles, the outcomes of previous asbestos claims or those stemming from exposure to chemicals or irritants may be used to guide such scenarios. However, when the illness started—whether during the opening of the chemical packaging or the point at which symptoms were noticed—may be difficult to determine.

Since their inception in 1984, companies, medical organizations and individuals have used 3D printers to create parts for aerospace operations, prosthetic limbs, or art installations.

But who technically owns the finished product—the blueprint's designer, the printing entity, or the person using it? Knowles says anyone active in the printing process can be named in a copyright claims surrounding a design.

Knowles says, “The copyright issue would start with the user of the printer; the one who asks the technology to print an item and go further depending on how the 3D printer and operated created the model to how the design's creator was offering their service—there would at least be a claim, whether viable or not.”

And then, who is responsible for what happens to the finished product, or what it does to other people or property?

Research company Gartner predicts that worldwide shipments of 3D printers priced less than $100,000 will grow by nearly 50 percent this year to reach a total of 56,507 units sold in 2013.

Customers will have access to the prototype for the Liberator, a plastic handgun designed by political campaigners Defense Distributed, which the Washington Post reports was downloaded more than 100,000 times before officers demanded the blueprint's removal.

It is possible that a person attempting to use a Liberator to shoot at a safe target may be unaware of a flaw that arose during printing, but which causes it to explode in their hand.

“The person who is hurt could go after the person who printed the gun and/or the entity that provided the design, depending on the facts of the claim,” says Knowles. “It could fall under a homeowners policy that has a liability section; however there is likely going to be some level of inquiry around whether this was a business pursuit.

In that case, says Knowles, “The designer should have a General Liability policy and design liability policy. It would depend on the state in which the litigation is processed and the claimant would have to show connection between the design and the shooting.”

Until the repercussions of 3D printing technology are more widely established, the claims environment surrounding it may continue to resemble the fictitious world of the Wild West.