Product Liability

Everyone purchases material goods, which may include items for basic needs, discretionary use, or entertainment. When one makes a purchase, it is with the belief that the product will function as intended and not pose an unreasonable risk of harm. Unfortunately, that is not how it always works. Whether it’s due to a defective design, defects in the manufacturing process, or failures to adequately warn consumers about potential risks, some products may be dangerous – even when used responsibly and for their intended purpose. If you have been injured by a defective product, you may be entitled to legal recourse.

Product liability law refers to the legal principles and regulations that govern the liability of manufacturers, distributors, and sellers for defective products that cause harm to consumers or users. The main takeaway is that a company may be liable if a defect in the manufacture or design of its product causes injury while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable way. The laws are designed so companies take necessary steps to ensure the safety of their products before releasing them to the public or risk bearing the costs suffered by injured people who are powerless to protect themselves when their products cause harm.

What is the difference between product liability and negligence?

In a typical negligence case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant breached a required duty of care owed to others, and that injuries or damages resulted from such violation. By comparison, strict liability makes no judgment based on good-faith intentions or no-fault responsibility. It only pertains to the fact that an injury or damage occurred.

When is a product considered defective?

In California, a product is generally considered defective in any of the following three circumstances:

1. It contains a manufacturing defect when the product departs from its intended design

2. It is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by using a reasonable alternative design

3. It lacks adequate instructions or warnings when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided had they been present

Thus, a plaintiff seeks to prove that his or her injury was a direct result of how the product was manufactured or designed, or the result of improper warnings.

What are the key aspects of product liability law?

In California, products liability law is generally based on the principles of strict liability and breach of warranty.

1. Strict Liability

Strict liability means that a defendant can be held liable for harm caused by a defective product without the need to prove negligence. It may apply to companies involved in the marketing and/or distribution process if all three of these elements are satisfied:

• The defendant received a direct financial benefit from its activities and from the sale of the product

• The defendant’s role was integral to the business enterprise such that the defendant’s conduct was a necessary factor in bringing the product to the initial consumer market

• The defendant had control over, or a substantial ability to influence, the manufacturing or distribution process

In addition to manufacturers, any company that plays a key part in the overall producing and marketing enterprise is subject to strict liability.

In California, strict liability can be imposed for three types of product defects:

• Manufacturing Defects: These occur when a product departs from its intended design due to an error in the manufacturing process. The product is not as intended, and it is more dangerous than consumers would reasonably expect.

• Design Defects: These involve flaws in the product’s overall design that make it inherently dangerous or ineffective, even if manufactured perfectly. In California, there are two tests to determine if there was a design defect.

• Consumer expectation test: Under this test, the plaintiff must prove that the manufacturer’s product did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to when used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way, and the plaintiff suffered harm as a result.

• Risk-benefit test: Under this test, the plaintiff must first prove on a more likely than not basis that the product’s design caused the injury. If that burden is met, the defendant has the opportunity to show that on balance, the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the design. In particular, a jury will weigh such factors as the gravity of the danger posed by the design, the likelihood such danger would occur, the feasibility of a safer alternative design, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the consumer resulting from an alternative design.

The two tests are not mutually exclusive, meaning both could potentially apply.

• Failure to Warn: Also known as marketing defects, this occurs when a product lacks adequate warnings or instructions about potential risks and proper usage, leading to harm. Manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers about the hazards inherent in their products. The purpose of requiring adequate warnings is to inform consumers about a product’s hazards and faults of which they are unaware, so that the consumer may then either refrain from using the product altogether or avoid the danger by careful use.

2. Breach of warranty

Under this principle, manufacturers and sellers can be held liable for breaching either an express or implied warranty, which guarantees that the product is safe for its intended use.

• Breach of express warranty: To maintain a cause of action for breach of express warranty, the plaintiff must show each of the following elements on a more likely than not basis:

  • An express warranty to repair defects given in connection with the sale of goods

  • The existence of a defect covered by the warranty

  • The buyer’s notice to the seller of such a defect within a reasonable time after it discovery

  • The seller’s failure to repair the defect in compliance with the warranty

  • Damages

• Breach of implied warranty: Unlike for express warranties, which are basically contractual in nature, the implied warranty of merchantability arises by operation of law. Rather than impose a general requirement that goods meet the exact expectation of the buyer, it instead provides for a minimum level of quality. The elements, each of which must be satisfied, are:

  • the plaintiff bought the product

  • at the time of purchase, the defendant was in the business of the selling those types of goods

  • that either the product was not the same quality as those generally accepted in the trade or was not fit for the ordinary purpose for which it’s used

  • the plaintiff took reasonable steps to notify the defendant within a reasonable time that the product did not have the expected quality

  • that the plaintiff was harmed

  • the failure of the product to have the expected quality was a substantial factor in causing the harm

What if you are partially at fault?

California follows a comparative fault system, which means that the injured party’s own negligence or fault will be taken into account when determining compensation. If the injured party is found partially at fault for the accident, compensation may be reduced by his or her percentage of fault.

Our Approach

Product defect claims are often complicated and rely heavily on expert opinions, particularly for design defect cases. Our attorneys will investigate the circumstances surrounding your use of a defective product, gather evidence, and work diligently to build a strong case on your behalf. We will handle negotiations with insurance companies and other parties involved to strive for a fair settlement. If a settlement cannot be reached, we are prepared to litigate aggressively to protect your rights.

Why Choose Us?

• Expertise: Our attorneys are knowledgeable in personal injury law and have extensive experience handling product defect cases. We have a thorough understanding of the legal complexities involved and will use our expertise to build a strong case on your behalf.

• Personalized Approach: We believe in providing personalized attention to every client. We understand that each product defect case is unique and requires a tailored approach. Our attorneys will take the time to listen to your concerns, answer your questions, and develop a legal strategy that aligns with your specific needs and goals.

• Proven Track Record: With a successful track record of obtaining favorable outcomes for our clients, you can trust us to handle your case. We have secured significant settlements and verdicts in product defect cases, helping our clients recover compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and more.

• Resources and Network: We have access to a wide range of resources and a vast network of experts, including accident reconstructionist, medical professionals, and investigators. We will leverage these connections to strengthen your case and ensure that no stone is left unturned.

• No Fee Unless We Win: We understand the financial strain that can result from injuries suffered by use of a defective product, which is why we generally take personal injury cases on a contingency fee basis. This means that you will not have to pay any upfront fees. You only pay us if we successfully obtain compensation for you, ensuring that you can focus on your recovery without worrying about legal expenses.

Choosing the right attorney after suffering an injury that was not your fault is crucial. With Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, you can have confidence that you are selecting a firm that will champion your rights and work tirelessly to achieve the best possible outcome for your case. Contact us today for a free consultation and let us guide you on the path to justice and recovery.

Contact Us