You
What is California strict product liability?
S
California adopted strict product liability in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, which held that a manufacturer is liable when an article it places on the market, knowing that it will be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury. Strict liability does not require proof of negligence; the plaintiff must show that the product was defective and that the defect caused the injury. The framework was extended to retailers in Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256 and to wholesalers in Canifax v. Hercules Powder Co. (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 44.
You
What are the Barker v. Lull defectiveness tests?
S
Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413 established two alternative tests for design defectiveness in California: (1) the consumer-expectations test (a product is defective if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner), and (2) the risk-benefit test (a product is defective if the risk of harm outweighs the benefits, considering the gravity of the danger, the likelihood it will occur, the feasibility of a safer design, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences of an alternative design). The plaintiff can prevail under either test.
You
How did Soule v. GM limit the consumer-expectations test?
S
Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548 held that the consumer-expectations test is only available when the everyday experience of the product's user permits a conclusion that the product's design violated minimum safety assumptions and is defective regardless of expert opinion. For complex products where consumer expectations cannot be readily understood without expert testimony (most modern automotive, medical, industrial, and electronic products), the consumer-expectations test is unavailable and the plaintiff must use the risk-benefit test. The practical effect: many modern product-liability cases run on risk-benefit because the technical complexity of the product defeats consumer-expectations analysis.
You
What's in the $349 pre-suit memo?
S
A written legal memo covering: (1) the SOL analysis under CCP § 335.1 (general PI two-year) or CCP § 340.8 (toxic substances, three-year discovery rule) or CCP § 340.2 (asbestos, special framework) with the calendared filing window, (2) the strict-liability theory under Greenman, (3) the defectiveness theory under Barker (consumer-expectations or risk-benefit, depending on Soule), (4) the warning-defect theory if applicable, (5) the damages framework distinguishing economic from non-economic and addressing Prop. 51 if multiple defendants are involved, and (6) a referral recommendation to a contingency-fee product-liability or mass-tort specialist with whom I have a working relationship.
You
What is the statute of limitations on product liability?
S
Most California product-liability claims fall under CCP § 335.1 (two years for personal injury). The discovery rule extends the clock for latent injuries that do not manifest contemporaneously with use. CCP § 340.8 sets a three-year discovery-rule SOL for toxic-substance exposure (chemical, environmental). CCP § 340.2 governs asbestos cases with a separate framework (one year from disability or discovery, whichever is later). Government-owned product cases trigger Gov. Code § 911.2 six-month presentation. The memo identifies the controlling SOL based on your specific product and injury.
You
Who can be a defendant in a product-liability case?
S
California's strict-liability framework extends beyond the manufacturer to the retailer (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256), the wholesaler (Canifax v. Hercules Powder Co. (1965)), and other entities in the chain of distribution. Some categories of defendants have specific statutory protections: O'Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335 limited liability for component manufacturers to defects in their own components, not defects added by the integrator. Used-product sellers are usually not subject to strict liability unless they refurbished or altered the product. The memo identifies all potential defendants in the chain of distribution.
You
What about warning-defect cases?
S
Warning defects are a separate category alongside manufacturing and design defects. The legal standard is whether the manufacturer adequately warned of risks that were knowable in light of the generally recognized and prevailing scientific knowledge at the time the product was made and distributed. Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049 limited warning-defect liability for prescription drugs to risks knowable at the time. Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987 emphasized that the knowability standard applies to all warning-defect cases, not just prescription drugs. Most warning-defect cases require expert testimony on what the state of scientific knowledge was at the relevant time.
You
Why does Sergei do pre-suit memos instead of full PL litigation?
S
California product-liability litigation is contingency-fee or mass-tort work. The plaintiff-side firms that handle PL cases run on contingency and absorb expert-witness fees (often $50,000-200,000 per expert across mechanical, materials, biomechanics, human factors, design alternatives, toxicology, life-care planning, economist), 18-36 months of litigation time, and the mass-tort firm infrastructure when the case is part of a broader pattern. The economics only work at scale, which is why dedicated PL firms exist. I do the front end (intake, defectiveness theory, SOL preservation, structured handoff) and refer to plaintiff-side PL specialists or mass-tort firms when the case warrants litigation. The pre-suit memo becomes the firm's intake document.
You
What is the difference between strict liability and negligence?
S
Strict liability under Greenman does not require proof that the manufacturer was negligent; it requires only proof that the product was defective and the defect caused the injury. Negligence requires proof of duty, breach, causation, and damages. In practice, product-liability cases are typically pleaded under both theories: strict liability is the stronger plaintiff theory because it does not require establishing the manufacturer's conduct fell below the standard of care, but negligence allows the plaintiff to introduce evidence of specific failures (testing, design choices, prior incidents) that might not be admissible under pure strict liability. The pleading framework is established by case law including Barker and Soule.
You
Can I sue if the product was used differently than intended?
S
California product-liability law covers both intended use and reasonably foreseeable use. A product used in a way the manufacturer did not specifically intend can still support a claim if the use was foreseeable. Manufacturers are required to anticipate reasonable misuse and design or warn against it; misuse is a defense only when it is unforeseeable and unreasonable. Comparative fault under Prop. 51 (Civ. Code § 1431.2) applies to product-liability cases: the plaintiff's use of the product can reduce the recovery proportionally, but does not bar it. The memo addresses the use-pattern facts and how they affect the case.