“‘Products liability is the name currently given to the area of law involving the liability of those who supply goods or products for the use of others to purchasers, users, and bystanders for losses of various kinds resulting from so-called defects in those products.’” Johnson v. U.S. Steel Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 22, 30 (citation omitted).

A product liability case must be based on substantial evidence establishing:

1. a defect
2. which existed at the time the product left defendant’s control and entered the stream of commerce.

Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 478-479; see Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Company (1971) 4 Cal.3d 379, 383 (1971); Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1370

“A ‘product’ is broadly defined to include any ‘tangible personal property distributed commercially for use or consumption.’ (Rest.3d Torts, Products Liability, § 19, subd. (a).)” see Johnson v. U.S. Steel Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 22, 31.

“A product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, or is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings.” Id. § 2.

Liable Parties

“In products liability cases, a consumer injured by a defective product may sue any business entity in the chain of production and marketing, from the original manufacturer down through the distributor and wholesaler to the retailer; liability of all such defendants is joint and several.” Kaminski v. Western MacArthur Co. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 445, 455-456. This is true even where a defendant in the chain never took possession of the product. Canifax v. Hercules Powder Co. (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 44, 50-51.

“A product design may be found defective if:

1. the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner’ (consumer expectations test), or
2. the risk of danger inherent in the product’s design outweighs the design’s benefits (risk benefit test).”

Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 379, 387.

Negligence and Strict Liability

A plaintiff may seek recovery in a products liability case on theories of both negligence and strict liability. Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 379, 387.

Negligence

“Actionable negligence is traditionally regarded as involving the following:

1. a legal duty to use due care;
2. a breach of such legal duty;
3. the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.”

Jackson v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1830, 1837; see also Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 379, 383; CACI No. 1220.

“In considering whether a party has a legal duty in a particular factual situation, a distinction is drawn between claims of liability based upon misfeasance and those based upon nonfeasance.” Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1202.

“Liability for nonfeasance is limited to situations in which there is a special relationship that creates a duty to act.” Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1202. “The common law concept of special relationships covers: landowner or possessor and person coming on the land; manufacturer or supplier of goods and buyer or user; vendor, lessor, or contractor and purchaser, lessee or owner of real property.” Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 707, 712. “A special relationship may also arise out of a statutory duty or a contractual duty.” Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1203.

Strict Products Liability

“One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who sells or distributes a defective product is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the defect.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod. Liab. § 1 (1998).

A defendant involved in the marketing/distribution process can be strictly liable if three factors are present:

1. the defendant received a direct financial benefit from its activities and from the sale of the product;
2. the defendant’s role was integral to the business enterprise such that the defendant’s conduct was a necessary factor in bringing the product to the initial consumer market; and
3. the defendant had control over, or substantial ability to influence, the manufacturing or distribution process.

Bay Summit Comm. Assn. v. Shell Oil Co. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 762, 776; see also Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 379, 383.

Types of Product Defects

“The law has long recognized three types of product defects: manufacturing defects, design defects, and ‘warning defects.’” Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 180 (citation omitted).

Manufacturing Defects

Manufacturing defects arise where a flaw in the manufacturing process creates a product that differs from what the manufacturer intended. Brown v. Super. Ct. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1057.

Design Defects

“Design defects appear in products that, although properly manufactured, are dangerous because they lack a critical feature needed to ensure safe use.” Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 167, 180.

California recognizes two alternative tests for liability. “A product design may be found defective if:

1. the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner’ (consumer expectations test) or
2. the risk of danger inherent in the product’s design outweighs the design’s benefits (risk benefit test).”

Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 167, 180; Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 432.

“The component parts doctrine "applies

1. when a supplier provides a component or raw material that is not itself defective (by virtue of a manufacturing, design, or warning defect),
2. the component or raw material is changed or transformed when incorporated through the manufacturing process into a different finished or end product, and
3. an end user of the finished product is allegedly injured by a defect in the finished product."

Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties, Inc. (2016) 63 Ca1.4th 500, 507-508; see also Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 167, 183 (citations omitted).

Warning Defects

A product may be dangerous where it lacks adequate warnings or instructions. Brown v. Super. Ct. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1057.