Overview
California is the birthplace of modern strict products liability. Since the California Supreme Court's landmark decision in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963), the state has maintained one of the most plaintiff-friendly products liability frameworks in the nation. If a defective product injures you, you can pursue claims under three overlapping theories -- strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty -- against every entity in the chain of distribution, from the manufacturer to the retailer.
You do not need to prove the manufacturer was careless. You only need to prove the product was defective and the defect caused your injury.
Three Theories of Liability
| Theory | Standard | Key Advantage |
|---|---|---|
| Strict liability | Product was defective; defect caused injury | No need to prove the defendant was negligent |
| Negligence | Defendant failed to use reasonable care | Broader discovery into defendant's knowledge and conduct |
| Breach of warranty | Product failed to meet express or implied warranties | May have different statute of limitations |
Strict Products Liability
Under Greenman, a manufacturer is strictly liable when it places a product on the market knowing it will be used without inspection and the product proves to have a defect that causes injury. You must prove:
- The defendant manufactured, distributed, or sold the product
- The product contained a defect (design, manufacturing, or inadequate warning)
- The defect existed when the product left the defendant's control
- You used the product in a reasonably foreseeable manner
- The defect was a substantial factor in causing your injury
Types of Product Defects
Manufacturing Defect
A manufacturing defect exists when a specific unit of the product deviates from the manufacturer's own design specifications. The product as manufactured differs from what the manufacturer intended. The defect is in a particular unit, not the entire product line.
Design Defect
A design defect exists when the product's design itself is unreasonably dangerous. The entire product line shares the defect because it is inherent in the design. California applies two alternative tests.
Failure to Warn
A product may be defective if it lacks adequate warnings about risks associated with its foreseeable use, even if the product is otherwise well-designed and well-manufactured. The warning must be conspicuous, specific, comprehensive, understandable, and proportional to the severity of the risk.
Preserve the product. Preserve the packaging. Preserve everything.
The defective product is the single most important piece of evidence in your case. Do not repair, clean, or throw it away. Save it in its post-accident condition. A lawyer can arrange for expert inspection.
Design Defect: The Two Tests
The Consumer Expectations Test
A product is defective if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. This test is appropriate when the product's safety can be evaluated by common experience without expert testimony. A chair that collapses under normal use, a tire that blows out on the highway, a heater that catches fire during normal operation.
The Risk-Utility Test (Barker Burden-Shifting)
A product is defective if the risk of danger inherent in the design outweighs the benefits. Under Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the benefits of the design outweigh the risks. This is uniquely plaintiff-friendly: once you make a prima facie showing that the design was a substantial factor in causing your injury, the manufacturer must justify its design choices.
| Risk-Utility Factor | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Gravity of the danger | How serious are the injuries from this defect? |
| Likelihood of danger | How frequently does this danger occur? |
| Feasibility of safer design | Could the product have been designed more safely? |
| Cost of improvement | What would a safer design cost? |
| Adverse consequences | Would a safer design harm the product's utility? |
Failure to Warn
A product may be defective if it lacks adequate warnings about risks associated with its foreseeable use. The manufacturer must warn of potential risks that were known or knowable at the time of distribution. The warning must be conspicuous, specific, and understandable to the intended user.
The Learned Intermediary Doctrine
In pharmaceutical and medical device cases, the manufacturer's duty to warn runs to the prescribing physician (the "learned intermediary"), not directly to the patient. Exceptions may exist for direct-to-consumer advertising and mass immunization programs.
The Chain of Distribution
California strict liability extends to every entity in the chain of distribution:
- Manufacturers -- designed and/or manufactured the product
- Component part manufacturers -- makers of components incorporated into the final product
- Assemblers -- assembled the final product from components
- Distributors -- wholesale distributors in the chain of commerce
- Retailers -- sold the product to the end user
- Lessors -- entities that lease or rent products
Defenses in Products Liability
| Defense | Effect |
|---|---|
| Product misuse | Evaluated under comparative fault; reduces but does not bar recovery unless misuse was sole cause |
| Comparative fault | Plaintiff's negligence reduces recovery proportionally under Daly v. GM (1978) |
| State of the art | Relevant to negligence but generally not a defense to strict liability |
| Government compliance | Relevant but not dispositive; compliance with regulations is a floor, not a ceiling |
Punitive Damages in Products Liability
Punitive damages are available under Civil Code section 3294 when the manufacturer's conduct demonstrates malice, oppression, or fraud. The key evidence: internal documents showing the manufacturer knew of the defect, cost-benefit analyses prioritizing profit over safety, failure to recall after learning of the defect, concealment of test results, and continued sale after receiving injury complaints.
Barker burden-shifting puts the pressure on the defendant. Not on you.
California's products liability framework is uniquely favorable to injured consumers. We know how to use it. From Greenman strict liability to Barker burden-shifting, we build cases that put manufacturers on the defensive from day one.
Cross-References
- Duty of Care -- the general duty framework
- Comparative Fault -- comparative fault in strict liability
- Punitive Damages -- punitive damages for concealed defects
- Vicarious Liability -- chain of distribution liability
- Construction Defects -- defective building materials
- Economic Damages -- medical costs and life care plans
Common Questions
What is strict products liability in California?
Under Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, a manufacturer is strictly liable when it places a product on the market knowing it will be used without inspection and the product proves to have a defect that causes injury. You do not need to prove the manufacturer was negligent. You only need to prove the product was defective, the defect existed when it left the defendant's control, and the defect caused your injury. Every entity in the chain of distribution -- manufacturer, distributor, and retailer -- can be held strictly liable.
What is the difference between the consumer expectations test and the risk-utility test?
California applies two alternative tests for design defect. The consumer expectations test asks whether the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect. The risk-utility test asks whether the risk of danger outweighs the benefits of the design. Under Barker v. Lull Engineering (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove design benefits outweigh risks. The consumer expectations test is used when safety can be evaluated by common experience; the risk-utility test is used for complex technical issues.
Can I sue the retailer who sold me a defective product?
Yes. Under Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, retailers are strictly liable for defective products even if they had no role in the product's design or manufacture. This is a powerful tool because the retailer is often the most accessible and well-insured defendant. You can sue every entity in the chain of distribution: manufacturer, component maker, assembler, distributor, and retailer.
Is there a time limit on how old a product can be when I file a lawsuit?
California does not have a general statute of repose for products liability. Unlike many states that bar claims brought more than a certain number of years after the product was sold, California allows claims as long as the two-year statute of limitations from the date of injury has not expired. This means claims involving latent defects in long-lasting products can be brought decades after the product was sold.
Our offices
Local Resources
- CPSC Product RecallsCheck whether the product has been recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
- NHTSA Vehicle RecallsCheck vehicle and automotive product recalls.
- Cedars-Sinai EmergencyLos Angeles trauma center for serious product-related injuries.
- LA Superior Court · Stanley MoskCivil filings for LA County products liability cases.
- CA State Bar LookupVerify any attorney's license before hiring.
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57. Landmark case establishing strict products liability in California.
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413. Two alternative design defect tests; burden shifts to defendant under risk-utility.
- Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548. Consumer expectations test should not be used when failure circumstances are beyond ordinary consumer experience.
- Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256. Retailers are strictly liable for defective products in the chain of distribution.
- Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725. Comparative fault applies in strict products liability actions.
- California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. Two-year statute of limitations for personal injury; no statute of repose for products.