Bringing a Product Liability Lawsuit in California

An individual's injuries as a result of a defective product are the focus of a product liability action. A medication, a toy, an electronic device, or anything else could be the product. The most important thing is that the product is defective or malfunctioning in some way, and that the flaw or malfunction injures someone. Every year, thousands of people in the United States are wounded as a result of defective or harmful products. As a result, there are laws in place to provide legal recourse. According to California Product Liability Laws, any person who designs, produces, or sells a defective product is strictly liable for the product's damages, even in case the person or company was not negligent.

Elements the Plaintiff Must Prove During a Product Liability Lawsuit

Generally, a plaintiff must be able to establish the following elements, to prevail on a claim for products liability in California,

• Defendant designed, distributed, manufactured, or sold a defective product
• The product contained the defect when it left the defendant's possession
• Plaintiff used the product in a reasonably foreseeable manner
• As a result of the defect, the plaintiff suffered harm

Strict Product Liability in California

A defendant must usually have done (or failed to do) anything with negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, or the intent to cause harm in order to be liable for a plaintiff's injuries. However, in exceptional cases, a defendant may be accountable for a plaintiff's injuries despite the fact that the defendant did nothing wrong. Whoever creates, manufactures, or distributes a defective product that is more dangerous than it should be. As a result, it is solely responsible for any harm that the product can cause.

Types of Claims Under Strict Product Liability

Liability claims for defective products uses a basis of negligence, strict liability, or a breach of the warranty of fitness. Because there is no federal product liability legislation,  jurisdiction decides where the claim is submitted. Because of this lack of consistency, the US Department of Commerce published the Model Uniform Products Liability Act (MUPLA). This tries to develop standardized procedures for the products liability tort. There are essentially three types of claims under strict product liability:

• Manufacturing defect claims, which involve a defect in a specific item produced
• Design defect claims, which involve a defect in the design of an entire product line
• Failure to warn claims

Manufacturing Defect Claims

In manufacturing defects claims, the plaintiff asserts that a specific product was defectively manufactured as compared to products in the same line, and the particular units of the product were defectively manufactured. So, the product presented harm which actually was a result of the manufacturing defects.

Design Defect Claims

A lawsuit based on a product's poor design is the first sort of product liability claim. In a legal case based on defective design, the plaintiff claims that the product is inherently unsafe due to its design rather than a manufacturing error. To asses defective design product liability claims California this using two tests:

• The Risk-Benefit Test

According to this test, after the plaintiff shows that the defective product design caused the injuries. The defendant now has the entire burden of proof. The defendant must prove that the utility of the defective product design outweighs the risk of the design. If he fails to do that, then the plaintiff will win the case.

• The Consumer Expectations Test

According to this test, a product’s design will be defective in case it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect it to perform.

Failure to Warn Claim

According to California's strict product liability, a defendant who is aware that the consumer is using the product in a reasonably foreseeable manner. That exposes him to a risk of injuries is under obligation to warn the consumer of the risk of injury or harm. The defendant can be liable for a failure to warn when such failure could have altered the outcome. So, in case a typical consumer would have become aware of the risk of injuries or harm on his own, then the defendant can’t be liable for failing to warn of an already-known hazard.

Glendale Personal Injury Lawyer

If you or a loved one has been harmed as the of defective product, then you may be entitled to compensation. If that is the case, contact our Glendale personal injury lawyer today for a consultation and case review. Please feel free to give our office a call at 310.943.1171.   [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAfPxXwzc2E[/embed]