In the complex labyrinth of law, few areas consistently engender the level of misinformation as product liability litigation. This specific sector of jurisprudence, focused on holding manufacturers and sellers accountable for defective products that harm consumers, is often rife with misconceptions. To navigate this intricate field effectively, it becomes imperative to debunk the prevalent myths revolving around product liability lawyers.

The first myth that needs to be dismantled is the notion that product liability lawyers defend only the consumer. While it is true that these legal professionals often represent injured consumers, it is crucial to understand they also defend manufacturers and sellers against unjustified claims. Much like the principle of duality in particle physics, where subatomic particles exhibit both wave-like and particle-like properties, product liability lawyers inhabit dual roles. They thus serve as an essential balancing force in the consumer-producer legal ecosystem.

Secondly, there is a prevalent belief that any injury caused by a product is grounds for a successful lawsuit. In reality, the law mandates a demonstrable product defect that caused the injury. This concept, termed as 'causation,' is an essential constituent of Tort law. Much like the statistical concept of correlation does not imply causation, an injury does not automatically imply product liability.

A third common myth is that a product liability lawsuit is a guaranteed way to secure astronomical financial damages. This misapprehension is akin to the gambler’s fallacy, the erroneous belief that individual random events can affect the probability of future ones. In truth, the outcome of a lawsuit is predicated upon a complex interplay of factors, including the severity of the injury, the nature of the product defect, the defendant’s conduct, and, importantly, the skill of the representing lawyer.

The fourth myth suggests that only the manufacturer can be held liable in a product liability lawsuit. This belief falls apart under the scrutiny of legal doctrine, which extends the potential liability to all entities in the product’s chain of distribution. This chain, much like the intricate web of global trade, can encompass a multitude of parties including wholesalers, retailers, and suppliers.

The fifth myth is that product liability lawyers are motivated solely by profit. This notion ignores the altruistic dimensions intrinsic to this profession. Akin to the concept of altruism in social sciences, which propounds selfless concern for the wellbeing of others, product liability lawyers often strive to uphold the rights of consumers and enforce accountability in commercial enterprises.

The sixth myth implies that product liability cases are always won by well-heeled corporations. This myth, reminiscent of the David vs. Goliath narrative, is debunked by a historical analysis of litigation outcomes. Legal victories are not solely determined by financial clout but by the strength of the case and the prowess of the legal representation.

The seventh myth is that a product liability case is a quick and easy process. In reality, due to the complex nature of product manufacturing and distribution, these cases often resemble solving a Rubik's Cube, requiring patience, skill, and strategic maneuvering.

The eighth myth purports that product liability lawsuits drive companies into bankruptcy. While lawsuits can indeed exert financial pressure, a single case rarely leads to a company's insolvency. Analogous to the principle of supply and demand in economics, the financial health of a company depends on a multitude of factors, with lawsuits being just one variable in the equation.

The ninth myth holds that all product liability lawyers possess equal skills and expertise. This notion negates the vast disparities in the degrees of proficiency, much like the varying magnitudes in a mathematical set. Irrefutably, the choice of a product liability lawyer can significantly influence the outcome of a case.

Finally, the tenth myth is that defective products are the only ground for a product liability lawsuit. This belief overlooks other dimensions such as inadequate warning labels or instructions, which are equally valid grounds for litigation under the premise of ‘failure to warn’. It is akin to the Iceberg Theory posited by Hemingway, where the most significant parts of a story lie beneath the surface.

In conclusion, navigating the realm of product liability lawyers requires a nuanced understanding that transcends common misconceptions. By debunking these prevalent myths, one can approach this complex legal field with greater clarity and make informed decisions.