Product Liability Claims

Personal Injury

California Product Liability Law

California is the birthplace of modern product liability law. In the landmark 1963 decision Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., the California Supreme Court established that manufacturers are strictly liable for injuries caused by defective products—meaning the injured consumer does not need to prove negligence. At The Law Offices of Farris Ain, we use California’s powerful consumer protection framework to hold manufacturers, distributors, and retailers accountable when their products cause harm.

Strict Liability: The Greenman Standard

Under Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when it places a product on the market knowing that the product will be used without inspection for defects, and the product proves to have a defect that causes injury. The rationale is straightforward: manufacturers are in the best position to prevent defects and should bear the cost when defective products injure consumers.

Strict liability applies to every entity in the chain of distribution—not just the manufacturer. This includes component part makers, assemblers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers. No privity of contract is required; even a bystander injured by a defective product can bring a strict liability claim.

Three Types of Product Defects

Design Defects

A design defect exists when the product’s design itself is inherently dangerous, even when manufactured exactly as intended. California applies the two-part test established in Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413:

• Consumer expectations test: Did the product fail to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner?
• Risk-benefit test: Does the risk of danger inherent in the design outweigh the benefits of that design? Under this test, the burden shifts to the manufacturer to prove that the benefits of the design outweigh the risks—a significant advantage for plaintiffs.

The Barker two-part test is one of the most plaintiff-friendly design defect standards in the country, and it is a cornerstone of California product liability litigation.

Manufacturing Defects

A manufacturing defect occurs when a specific unit of a product departs from its intended design due to an error in the manufacturing process. The product was designed safely, but this particular unit was not made correctly. Examples include a vehicle with a faulty weld, a pharmaceutical contaminated during production, or a consumer appliance with an improperly installed component.

Manufacturing defect cases are often the most straightforward type of product liability claim because the plaintiff can point to the manufacturer’s own design specifications to show that the product as delivered did not conform to the intended design.

Warning and Marketing Defects (Failure to Warn)

A product may be defective if it lacks adequate warnings or instructions about known risks associated with its use. Even a well-designed, properly manufactured product can be “defective” under California law if the manufacturer knew or should have known of a risk and failed to provide adequate warnings to consumers. This is particularly important in pharmaceutical and medical device cases, where the manufacturer has a continuing duty to update warnings as new risk information becomes available.

Strict Liability vs. Negligence

Product liability claims in California can be brought under both strict liability and negligence theories. The key difference:

• Strict liability: The plaintiff need only prove the product was defective and that the defect caused the injury. No proof of fault or carelessness is required.
• Negligence: The plaintiff must prove that the manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, testing, or warning about the product.

We typically pursue both theories simultaneously, as negligence claims allow for additional evidence of the manufacturer’s knowledge, internal decision-making, and cost-cutting that can be highly persuasive to a jury.

Medical Device Injuries

Defective medical devices—including hip and knee implants, surgical mesh, pacemakers, insulin pumps, and surgical instruments—cause thousands of injuries each year. These cases often involve devices that were approved through the FDA’s 510(k) clearance process (which requires only a showing of “substantial equivalence” to an existing device) rather than rigorous pre-market approval. Federal preemption issues can complicate medical device cases, making experienced legal counsel essential.

Pharmaceutical Injuries

Dangerous drugs and medications can cause severe side effects that the manufacturer knew about or should have discovered through adequate testing. Pharmaceutical liability cases frequently involve failure to warn physicians and consumers about known risks, suppression or manipulation of clinical trial data, off-label promotion for unapproved uses, and contamination during manufacturing. California’s learned intermediary doctrine affects how warning obligations are evaluated in prescription drug cases, as warnings are directed to prescribing physicians rather than patients.

Consumer Product Recalls

A product recall by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) or the manufacturer is strong evidence that a product was defective. However, a recall is not required to bring a product liability claim, and the absence of a recall does not mean a product is safe. Many defective products remain on the market for years before a recall is issued—if one is ever issued at all.

Damages in Product Liability Cases

Victims of defective products may recover compensation for medical expenses, lost wages and earning capacity, pain and suffering, emotional distress, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, and property damage. In cases involving knowing concealment of a product defect or particularly egregious conduct, punitive damages may be available to punish the manufacturer and deter similar conduct in the future.

“California law puts the burden where it belongs—on the manufacturer, not the consumer. When a defective product causes injury, strict liability means you don’t have to prove the manufacturer was careless. You only have to prove the product was defective.”