Product Liability Strict Liability FAQ

Strict liability in California product liability law means that a manufacturer, distributor, or seller can be held liable for injuries caused by a defective product regardless of whether they were negligent or at fault. Under this legal doctrine, the injured party does not need to prove that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. Instead, they only need to establish that the product was defective, the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control, and the defect caused their injury.

This makes it significantly easier for consumers to recover damages compared to traditional negligence claims. California courts adopted strict liability to ensure that manufacturers bear the costs of injuries resulting from defective products they introduce into the stream of commerce, recognizing that they are in the best position to prevent such defects and distribute the costs through insurance and pricing.

In California, strict liability can apply to any entity in the distribution chain of a defective product. This includes manufacturers who design and produce the product, wholesalers and distributors who handle the product before it reaches retailers, retail stores that sell the product to consumers, and in some cases, lessors who lease products.

Even if a retailer had no role in creating the defect and had no way of discovering it through reasonable inspection, they can still be held strictly liable. However, strict liability generally does not extend to service providers who merely repair or maintain products without placing them into the stream of commerce. The rationale is that all commercial sellers benefit from placing products in the market and should share responsibility for defects. This broad application ensures injured consumers have multiple potential defendants from whom to seek compensation, increasing the likelihood of recovery.

To establish a strict liability claim in California, a plaintiff must prove three essential elements. First, the product must have been defective when it left the defendant's possession or control. This means the defect existed before the product reached the consumer, not that it developed afterward due to misuse or wear. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defect was a substantial factor in causing their injury. There must be a direct causal connection between the product defect and the harm suffered.

Third, the plaintiff must show they suffered actual damages, whether physical injuries, property damage, or economic losses. Importantly, the plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant was negligent, knew about the defect, or could have prevented it through reasonable care. The focus is solely on the condition of the product and whether that condition caused injury, not on the defendant's conduct or state of mind.

No, strict liability in California explicitly does not require proof of negligence. This is the fundamental distinction that makes strict liability such a powerful tool for injured consumers. Under traditional negligence law, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant breached a duty of care by failing to act reasonably. In contrast, strict liability focuses exclusively on the product itself rather than the manufacturer's conduct.

Even if a manufacturer exercised the utmost care in designing, testing, and producing a product, they can still be held liable if the product contained a defect that caused injury. The manufacturer's good faith efforts, quality control procedures, and compliance with industry standards are generally irrelevant to strict liability. This approach recognizes that despite best efforts, defects can still occur, and the party that profits from placing products in commerce should bear the responsibility when those products cause harm. The policy reflects a determination that accident costs should be borne by manufacturers as a cost of doing business rather than by innocent injured consumers.

A manufacturing defect occurs when a product deviates from its intended design due to an error in the manufacturing process, making it more dangerous than consumers would reasonably expect. Unlike design defects that affect all products in a line, manufacturing defects typically affect only certain units. For example, if a pharmaceutical company's manufacturing process inadvertently contaminates one batch of medication, those affected pills have a manufacturing defect even though the product design is sound.

Similarly, if a single bicycle leaves the factory with improperly secured brakes due to assembly error, that specific bicycle has a manufacturing defect. Under California law, manufacturing defects are subject to strict liability because the product did not match the manufacturer's own specifications and design. The plaintiff need only prove that the product was defective as manufactured and that this deviation from the intended design caused injury. The manufacturer cannot defend by showing they exercised reasonable care, as the focus is on the product's condition, not the manufacturing process.

Yes, in California you can sue a retailer under strict liability even though they did not manufacture the defective product. Retailers are considered part of the distribution chain and can be held strictly liable for selling defective products that cause injury. This applies regardless of whether the retailer knew about the defect, could have discovered it through reasonable inspection, or had any role in creating the defect.

For instance, if you purchase a defective power tool from a hardware store and the tool injures you due to a manufacturing defect, you can sue the hardware store even though they simply sold the product without modifying it. The policy rationale is that retailers benefit economically from selling products and are in a position to insure against liability and seek indemnity from manufacturers. However, retailers typically have the right to seek contribution or indemnity from the manufacturer or others in the distribution chain. This ensures that injured consumers have multiple avenues for recovery while ultimately placing financial responsibility on those most responsible for the defect.

Strict liability and negligence are fundamentally different legal theories in California product liability cases. In a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty by failing to act reasonably, and that this breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. The focus is on the defendant's conduct and whether they acted as a reasonable person or company would under the circumstances. This requires examining what the defendant knew or should have known, what precautions they took, and whether those precautions were adequate.

In contrast, strict liability focuses solely on the product and whether it was defective, regardless of how carefully the defendant acted. The plaintiff need not prove the defendant was careless or could have prevented the defect. Even if the manufacturer followed industry best practices, conducted extensive testing, and implemented rigorous quality control, they can still be strictly liable if the product was defective and caused injury. This makes strict liability claims generally easier to prove and more favorable to plaintiffs than negligence claims.

California law generally does not impose strict liability on sellers of used products, with some important exceptions. The California Supreme Court has held that occasional sellers of used products, such as individuals selling at garage sales or through online marketplaces, are not subject to strict liability because they are not engaged in the business of distributing new products. Similarly, many courts have declined to apply strict liability to commercial dealers in used products, reasoning that used product sellers cannot inspect for latent defects and buyers understand that used products may have wear or defects.

However, this exception has limits. If a used product dealer reconditions, repairs, or represents that a used product is safe or like-new, strict liability may apply. Additionally, if a commercial dealer regularly sells certain types of used products as part of their business, some courts have applied strict liability. The analysis often depends on factors such as the nature of the seller's business, representations made about the product, whether the product was refurbished, and the buyer's reasonable expectations about product safety.

While strict liability eliminates the need to prove negligence, several defenses remain available to defendants in California. First, defendants can argue that the product was not defective when it left their control, perhaps showing that the defect arose from subsequent misuse, modification, or normal wear and tear. Second, they can challenge causation by demonstrating that the defect was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries. Third, defendants can raise comparative fault, arguing that the plaintiff's own misuse or assumption of risk contributed to the injury, which may reduce damages proportionally under California's comparative negligence system.

Fourth, the statute of limitations defense bars claims filed more than two years after the injury occurred. Fifth, defendants can argue that the plaintiff failed to use the product as intended or ignored clear warnings. Additionally, the sophisticated user defense may apply when selling to knowledgeable businesses rather than ordinary consumers. However, defendants cannot avoid liability by showing they exercised reasonable care or complied with industry standards, as these are not defenses to strict liability.

In California, the statute of limitations for strict product liability claims is generally two years from the date the injury occurred or was discovered. This time limit is established under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1, which governs personal injury actions. The clock typically starts running when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should have known about both the injury and its cause. In some cases involving latent injuries that are not immediately apparent, the discovery rule may extend this period, allowing the two-year period to begin when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury and its connection to the defective product.

However, plaintiffs should not delay in filing claims, as gathering evidence becomes more difficult over time, and courts strictly enforce statutory deadlines. There is also a separate statute of repose that may bar claims after a certain time has passed since the product was sold, regardless of when injury occurred. For property damage claims involving defective products, a different three-year statute of limitations applies under Section 338. Given these complex timing rules, consulting with an attorney promptly after discovering an injury is crucial to preserving your rights.