Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Product liability law in California stands as a robust legal shield for consumers and workers, holding manufacturers, distributors, and retailers strictly accountable for injuries caused by defective products.
Unlike traditional negligence claims, which require proving a defendant's carelessness, California’s strict product liability doctrine simplifies the path to compensation.
An injured party needs only to prove that the product was defective, the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control, and the defect was a substantial factor in causing the injury.
This foundational legal structure is defined by the recognition of three core defect categories: design, manufacturing, and warning defects.
A product is deemed to have a design defect if the product's fundamental plans or specifications make it inherently dangerous, regardless of how perfectly it was built.
In essence, all units produced according to that design are flawed. California, through the seminal case Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978), established two alternative tests for proving a design defect, either of which can be used to hold a defendant strictly liable:
This test applies to products within the common knowledge of the ordinary consumer. The core question is whether the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.
If the malfunction or failure is so obvious that a layperson, based on their experience, can infer the product was defective (e.g., a new brake system fails completely, or a ladder collapses upon first use), the consumer expectation test is applied.
Expert testimony is often unnecessary here because the defect is self-evident.
This test is applied when a product's operation involves complex technical details beyond the common experience of an ordinary consumer (e.g., medical devices, specialized machinery, or automotive safety systems).
Under the risk-benefit analysis, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the product's design was a substantial factor in causing the injury.
The burden then shifts to the defendant (the manufacturer) to prove that the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risks of danger inherent in that design.
To meet this burden, the defendant must address factors such as:
If a reasonably feasible, alternative design could have prevented the injury without compromising the product's utility, the defendant is likely to be held liable for a design defect.
A manufacturing defect is the simplest form of product defect and is proven when a specific product deviates from the manufacturer’s own specifications or from other units in the same product line, rendering it unsafe.
This type of defect occurs during the assembly, fabrication, or quality control stage and is usually specific to a single product or a limited batch, rather than the entire product line.
This defect occurs during the assembly, fabrication, or quality control stage. Examples include:
The standard for proving a manufacturing defect is straightforward: the plaintiff must show that the particular product that caused the injury was flawed compared to the intended specifications.
A product may be perfectly designed and manufactured, yet still be considered defective if it lacks adequate warnings or instructions.
This category, sometimes called a "marketing defect," arises from the manufacturer's failure to provide information necessary to ensure the product’s safe use.
A defendant has a duty to warn against risks that are known or scientifically knowable at the time of manufacture or sale, provided those risks are not obvious to the ordinary user. This duty covers two main areas:
In California, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the absence of a warning was a substantial factor in causing the injury. If a warning had been provided, the injury might have been avoided.
It is worth noting that California law provides a specific exemption for manufacturers and sellers of certain common consumer products that are inherently unsafe and known to be so by the ordinary consumer, such as sugar or butter (see California Civil Code (Inherent Unsafeness).
However, this exemption does not apply to manufacturing defects or breach of express warranty claims.
The core principles of design, manufacturing, and warning defects form the basis for a wide range of specific claims, often overlapping with other areas of personal injury and workplace law.
Workplace injuries frequently involve defective products, ranging from large industrial machinery to personal protective equipment.
When an employee is injured by defective equipment, the legal liability extends beyond the employer to the entire "chain of distribution" of the product, which includes the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer.
The complexities of navigating these claims underscore the importance of understanding the dual legal systems involved in on-the-job injuries (for more context, see Product & Workplace Injury Claims in California).
An employee injured by a defective product at work generally has two avenues for compensation.
The Workers’ Compensation system provides guaranteed, no-fault medical and disability benefits directly from the employer, but typically prohibits the employee from suing the employer for greater damages, such as pain and suffering.
However, if a defective product is involved, the employee can pursue a separate, civil Personal Injury Lawsuit against the third-party company that designed, manufactured, or sold the product.
This separate lawsuit is crucial because it allows the plaintiff to seek full compensatory damages, including economic losses (future medical expenses, lost earning capacity) and non-economic losses (pain, suffering, and emotional distress), which workers’ compensation does not cover.
The term "third-party claim" is essential in the workplace context. It refers to the product liability lawsuit brought against any entity other than the injured employee's direct employer.
For instance, if a construction worker is injured when a defective scaffold (made by Scaffolding Co.) collapses, they will file a workers' compensation claim against their employer (Construction Inc.) and a third-party product liability claim against Scaffolding Co. This strategic separation of claims maximizes the injured worker’s potential recovery.
Medical devices, ranging from hip implants and pacemakers to surgical mesh and diagnostic tools, are a high-stakes area of product liability.
Claims against manufacturers of these devices often center on design defects (e.g., a knee replacement that degrades too quickly) or failure to warn defects (e.g., a manufacturer failed to disclose all potential side effects of a drug or device).
A significant challenge in these cases involves the doctrine of federal preemption, which sometimes shields manufacturers of certain FDA-approved devices from state-level design defect claims.
However, California courts often permit claims based on manufacturing defects or "failure to warn" (often alleging the manufacturer failed to update labeling or warnings after gaining new knowledge of the risks).
These cases are frequently consolidated into complex Multi-District Litigation (MDL) due to the large number of plaintiffs affected nationwide.
The automotive industry generates some of the largest and most complex product liability litigation in California, often involving catastrophic injuries or wrongful death.
Defects in key safety components, including airbags (failure to deploy or deploying too aggressively), seatbelts (unlatching during a collision), tires (blowouts due to design flaw), and vehicle stability controls—are common sources of claims.
California consumers benefit from strong consumer protection laws.
Even if a mass Recall has been issued by the manufacturer or mandated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an injured person may still pursue a private civil claim.
A recall is strong evidence that a defect existed, although the plaintiff must still prove the defect was the direct cause of their specific injury.
The doctrine of strict liability is especially critical for dangerous household products because the injury often happens quickly and without warning.
From exploding electronics (due to battery manufacturing defects) to faulty appliances (due to electrical wiring design flaws) and toxic cleaning products (due to inadequate warning labels), strict liability allows the injured consumer to seek recourse without proving the manufacturer was negligent in its actions.
The focus remains squarely on the defective condition of the product itself.
Product liability applies to the components and materials that cause toxic harm.
Lawsuits related to Toxic Exposure in California, such as those involving asbestos (mesothelioma claims), industrial chemicals, or defective building products that foster hazardous mold growth, present unique challenges regarding causation and the statute of limitations.
Due to the long latency period of many toxic-related illnesses, California employs a discovery rule for the statute of limitations.
The two-year period for filing a claim often does not begin until the victim discovers (or reasonably should have discovered) both the illness and the product that caused it.
This two-year statute of limitations for personal injury and wrongful death is codified under California Code of Civil Procedure (Statute of Limitations). Causation in these cases requires sophisticated expert testimony to link the defendant's product, often decades old, to the specific dose and timing of the plaintiff’s illness.
The construction sector relies on specialized, high-powered machinery.
When this equipment fails, whether due to a Design Defect (e.g., a lack of roll-over protection on a bulldozer), a Manufacturing Defect (e.g., a faulty weld on a crane boom), or a Warning Defect (e.g., unclear instructions on dismantling scaffolding), the resulting injuries are often life-altering or fatal.
Product liability claims against the equipment manufacturer are a frequent part of litigation following major construction accidents.
Manufacturing plants and industrial facilities rely on large, complex machinery. Liability claims in this sphere often focus on two key areas: the absence or bypassing of necessary safety interlocks and guards (Design Defect or Warning Defect), and failures in specialized tools or components (Manufacturing Defect).
A manufacturer's duty includes designing equipment that is reasonably safe and providing warnings against tampering or removing safety features.
Beyond strict liability, a manufacturer may also face claims of negligence if they breached the general duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, or inspection of the product, as defined by California Civil Code (Duty of Care).
When a single defect affects a large and geographically dispersed group of consumers, a California Class Action lawsuit may be the most efficient and powerful legal vehicle.
Class actions are typically pursued when the individual damages are too small to justify individual lawsuits, but the collective loss is significant.
Examples include widespread defects in consumer electronics, pharmaceutical contamination, or minor but pervasive vehicle defects. The class must meet stringent requirements for commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, and numerosity to be certified by a court.
Product liability law in California, founded on the principle of strict liability and defined by the three categories of design, manufacturing, and warning defects, is a sophisticated and highly effective means of consumer protection.
It ensures that every entity in the chain of distribution from the designer's blueprint to the final retailer's shelf—bears the responsibility for the safety of the goods placed into the stream of commerce.
For individuals injured by a defective product, these laws provide the critical legal pathways to hold powerful corporations accountable and secure the compensation necessary to recover from devastating injuries.
The law remains a dynamic force, continually adapting to new technologies and products, from complex medical devices to advanced autonomous vehicle systems, ensuring that consumer safety remains paramount.
What are the three types of product defects in California law?
The three main types are design defects, manufacturing defects, and warning defects. Each creates strict liability for manufacturers and sellers if they cause injury.
What is strict product liability in California?
Strict product liability means an injured consumer does not need to prove negligence. They only need to show the product was defective and caused their injury.
Can I sue for defective products in California?
Yes. California allows lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, and retailers for defective products that cause harm, including cars, medical devices, and household goods.
What is the statute of limitations for product liability in California?
In most cases, you have two years from the date of injury—or discovery of the injury and its cause—to file a product liability claim in California.
What is the difference between workers’ comp and a product liability lawsuit?
Workers’ compensation covers job-related injuries but limits damages. A product liability lawsuit against a manufacturer or third party allows victims to recover broader damages, including pain and suffering.
What is an example of a design defect in California?
A ladder that collapses due to flawed design, or a car with a braking system that fails under normal use, would be considered design defects.
What is a failure to warn claim?
This arises when a manufacturer fails to provide adequate warnings or instructions about a product’s non-obvious risks, such as drug side effects or flammable chemicals.
Are recalls required for product liability lawsuits in California?
No. Even if a product has not been recalled, an injured person can still file a product liability lawsuit if the defect caused harm.
