Bringing a Product Liability Lawsuit in California

When we purchase a product, we expect it to be safe and function as intended. Unfortunately, defective products can cause serious injuries, property damage, and even death. California law provides a framework for holding manufacturers, distributors, and retailers accountable for the harm caused by defective products. At KAASS LAW, we are dedicated to protecting consumers and ensuring they receive the compensation they deserve for injuries caused by defective products. The following explores the intricacies of product liability lawsuits in California. Furthermore, this will be explaining the types of defects, the legal theories involved, and the steps you can take!

KAASS LAW, we dedicate in protecting consumers and ensuring they receive the compensation they deserve for injuries caused by defective products. This blog post explores the intricacies of product liability lawsuits in California, explaining the types of defects, the legal theories involved, and the steps you can take to seek justice.

The harms a person sustains as a result of a defective product are the focus of a product liability case. A medication, toy, electronic gadget, or anything else could be the product. The crucial factor is that the product must be faulty or malfunction in some way, causing harm to someone. There are regulations in place to give people legal remedies because unsafe and defective items injure thousands of people every year.

Elements the Plaintiff Must Prove During a Product Liability Lawsuit

To win a case for product liability in California, the plaintiff has to be able to prove the following elements:

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

Strict Product Liability in California

Usually, a defendant must have acted (or omitted to act) with gross negligence, recklessness, or malice in order to be held accountable for a plaintiff’s injuries. However, in some cases, a defendant could be strictly accountable for the plaintiff’s injuries, even though they were not their fault.

Anyone who produces or sells a product that is riskier than it ought to be is in violation of California law. Strict liability exists for any injuries of using the product in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable. Alternatively, or that fails to provide adequate warnings.

Types of Claims Under Strict Product Liability

Liability claims for defective products can occur on the basis of negligence, strict liability, or a breach of the warranty of fitness. Because there is no federal product liability legislation, this will usually depend on the jurisdiction. Because of this lack of consistency, the US Department of Commerce published the Model Uniform Products Liability Act (MUPLA), which attempts to promote uniform processes 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, which involve the defendant’s liability

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. 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.

In California, there are two tests used in assessing defective design product liability claims:

The Risk-Benefit Test

According to the Risk-Benefit Test, after the plaintiff shows that the defective product design caused the injuries, the burden of proof completely shifts to the defendant. 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 is aware that the consumer is using the product in a reasonably foreseeable manner. Will be eligible to warn the consumer of the risk of injury or harm if exposed to a risk of injury is eligible 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 a different outcome. So, if a typical consumer becomes 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.