Strict Products Liability in California

What Is Strict Products Liability?

Doctrine and Purpose

“[T]he purpose of [strict] liability is to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market, rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves.” (Hernandezcueva v. E.F. Brady Company, Inc. (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 249, 257.)

“The doctrine of strict products liability imposes strict liability in tort on the manufacturer of a defective product and others in the product’s chain of distribution.” (Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (2013) 214 Cal. App. 4th 173, 181-82.)

To establish a claim based on strict products liability, a plaintiff must show a defective product caused his or her injury. (See Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 465, 479-80.)

Three Theories of Liability

“Strict products liability has been imposed for defects arising from flaws in the manufacturing process (manufacturing defects), defects in the design rendering a product unsafe (design defects)[,] and inadequate warnings or failure to warn (warning defects).” (Garrett, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 182.)

“A product is defective in design if the benefits of the design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the design (risk-benefit test), or if the product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner (consumer expectations test).” (Garrett, supra, 214 Cal. App. 4th at 182.)

“Although not necessarily involved in the manufacture of design of the final product, those parties were subject to liability for ‘passing the product down the line to the consumers’ because they ‘were able to bear the cost of compensating for injuries and ‘play[ed] a substantial part in insuring that the product [was] safe or…[were] safe or…[were] in a position to exert pressure on the manufacturer to that end.’” (Hernandezcueva v. E.F. Brady Company, Inc. (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 249, 257.)

“[U]nder the stream-of-commerce approach to strict liability[,] no precise legal relationship to the member of the enterprise causing the defect to be manufactured or to the member most closely connected with the customer is required before the courts will impose strict liability.” (Hernandezcueva v. E.F. Brady Company, Inc. (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 249, 258.) It is the defendant's participatory connection, for his personal profit or other benefit, with the injury-producing product and with the enterprise that created consumer demand for and reliance upon the product (and not the defendant's legal relationship (such as agency) with the manufacturer or other entities involved in the manufacturing-marketing system) which calls for imposition of strict liability.(Id.)

“To be subject to strict liability, a party must ‘play more than a random and accidental role in the overall marketing enterprise of the product in question. (Hernandezcueva, supra, 243 Cal. App. 4th at 258.)

“Generally, the imposition of strict liability hinges on the extent to which a party was ‘responsible for placing products in the stream of commerce.”(Id.)

Difference Between “Products” and “Services”

“When the purchase of a product ‘is the primary objective or essence of the transaction, strict liability applies even to those who are mere conduits in distributing the product to the consumer. (Hernandezcueva v. E.F. Brady Company, Inc. (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 249, 258.) “In contrast, the doctrine of strict liability is ordinarily inapplicable to transactions ‘whose primary objective is obtaining services,’ and to transactions in which the ‘service aspect predominates and any product sale is merely incidental to the provision of the service.” (Id.)

The California Supreme Court has held that “a pharmacy is immune from strict [products] liability” because a pharmacist’s “conduct in filling a prescription is to be deemed a service.” (Murphy v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 672, 680.)

“Under these principles, when injury arises from a component integrated in another product, the imposition of strict liability on a party hinges on its role in the relevant transaction.” (Hernandezcueva v. E.F. Brady Company, Inc. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 249, 259.) “Generally, manufacturers and suppliers of a component to be integrated into a final product may be subject to strict liability when the component itself causes harm.” (Id.)

“In contrast, parties involved in passing a defective component to the ultimate user or consumer are not subject to strict products liability when their sole contribution to the pertinent transaction was a service, namely, the installation of the component into the pertinent final product.” (Id. at 257-259.)

Recovery and the Economic Loss Rule

In Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, the court applied the economic loss rule in the strict liability context: “[R]ecovery under the doctrine of strict liability is limited solely to "physical harm to person or property.” Damages available under strict products liability do not include economic loss, which includes 'damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product or consequent loss of profits -- without any claim of personal injury or damages to other property. . . . [Citation.] [P] . . . [P] In summary, the economic loss rule allows a plaintiff to recover in strict products liability in tort when a product defect causes damage to other property, that is, property other than the product itself. The law of contractual warranty governs damage to the product itself."

"Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 432 sets forth the two tests for strict products liability in California. “[A] product may be found defective in design, so as to subject a manufacturer to strict liability for resulting injuries, under either of two alternative tests. First, a product may be found defective in design if the plaintiff establishes that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner [consumer contemplation test]. Second, a product may alternatively be found defective in design if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product's design proximately caused his injury and the defendant fails to establish in light of relevant factors, that, on balance, the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design [safer alternative design test].” (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 135, 139-140.)

"Damages available under strict products liability do not include economic loss, which includes ‘damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product or consequent loss of profits-without any claim of personal injury or damages to other property...’” (Sacramento Regional Transit Dist. v. Grumman Flxible (1984) 158 Cal. App. 3d 289, 294.)

“[T]he economic loss rule allows a plaintiff to recover in strict products liability in tort when a product defect causes damage to ‘other property,’ that is, property other than the product itself. The law of contractual warranty governs damage to the product itself.” (Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 473, 483.)

Rulings for Strict Products Liability in California

TENTATIVE RULING: CROSS-DEFENDANT AMAZON.COM LLC'S DEMURRER TO FOURTH AND FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION FOR STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE IN SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT ("SACC") is SUSTAINED. Cross-Defendant Amazon.com, LLC asserts ("Amazon") the fourth and fifth causes of action (Strict Products Liability and Products Liability - Negligence) of the SACC by Defendants/Cross-Complainants JAIME MARTINEZ, JR, and AMY MARTINEZ ("Cross-Complainants") are insufficiently pled.

  • Name

    VIRREY VS MARTINEZ JR

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00042366-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2021

The FAC fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for strict products liability/failure to warn and the FAC is uncertain. 3rd Cause of Action for Strict Products Liability-Design Defect Again, Plaintiff fails to articulate any clear factual basis for a proper design defect claim and mixes elements of a negligence claim with the product liability claim.

  • Name

    VEAZEY VS CINTAS CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    CVRI2202455

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

The California Supreme Court has specifically held that a claim for strict products liability does not lie against a hotel proprietor and that strict products liability should be imposed only on those entities responsible for placing the defective product into the stream of commerce. (Peterson v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1185, 1188-89, 1209-10.

  • Name

    RICHMOND VS PATEL

  • Case No.

    MCC2000984

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Plaintiff may pursue a strict products liability claim on companion theories of negligence (second cause of action) and breach of warranty (third cause of action). (Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 547, 561 (“[a] plaintiff may pursue strict products liability on companion theories of negligence or breach of warranty”).) And the allegations are sufficient to support a breach of warranty claim. (FAC ¶¶44 and 46.)

  • Name

    GODINEZ VS SPRINGFIELD, INC.

  • Case No.

    CVSW2300215

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2024

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for Strict Liability. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s cause of action for Strict Liability does not state sufficient facts to support the elements of Strict Products Liability. In Opposition, Plaintiff states that he does not oppose Defendant’s demurrer. Conclusion Plaintiff’s FAC fails to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action for Strict Products Liability.

  • Name

    BRAYDER NAVARRETE ET AL VS MAYWOOD PLAZA MEAT MARKET ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC590310

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2016

Plaintiff's SAC alleges claims for (1) negligence, (2) strict products liability, and (3) loss of consortium. Defendant Burckhardt Compression (US) Inc. was substituted into the action as DOE 34 on on 12/16/11. 2. The SAC states sufficient facts to state a cause of action against Defendant Burkhardt for products liability based on negligence in its allegations in ¶¶ 31-38, which expressly encompass DOE 34.

  • Name

    LATHAM VS. NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

  • Case No.

    56-2010-00379881-CU-PP-SIM

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2012

On February 7, 2022, Plaintiff by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Laurie Forsythe, filed his complaint alleging the following causes of action: 1) Strict Products Liability – Design Defect; 2) Strict Products Liability – Manufacturing Defect; 3) Strict Products Liability – Failure to Warn; 4) Medical Malpractice; 5) Hospital Negligence; 6) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 7) Negligence; 8) Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et.

  • Name

    FORSYTHE VS KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, INC.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2200570

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2023

The complaint includes causes of action for negligence, negligent products liability, and strict products liability; each cause of action is asserted against all three defendants. The crux of the complaint against Defendants is found at ¶¶15 and 16, which allege: 15.

  • Name

    LUIS TISNADO VS HYTROL CONVEYOR COMPANY INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC569315

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2017

NEGLIGENT PRODUCTS LIABILITY 3. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 4. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY 5. BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES 6. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM.

  • Name

    OLEG ALEXANDROV ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 100

  • Case No.

    BC657639

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Valley asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (3) strict products liability-manufacturing defect [count 1]; (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect [count 2]; (5) negligent products liability [count 1]; (6) negligent products liability [count 2]; and (7) equitable indemnity. (FAC, 8-49.) This demurrer challenges only the third and fourth causes of action. Western argues that S.C.

  • Name

    SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC VS WESTERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00034673-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2017

Plaintiffs Complaint header alleges causes of action for (1) strict liability failure to warn (2) strict liability design defect, however, the body of Plaintiffs complaint alleges causes of action for (1) strict products liability, without a failure to warn, and negligent products liability (wrongful death), instead of strict liability design defect.

  • Name

    JUSTIN ARMSTRONG VS VK UNION CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV33786

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2022

App. 4th 424, 433-434 [on summary judgment, no strict liability because dominant purpose of membership at gym was fitness services, and fitness products were incidental]; Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 248, 258 [rafting company not liable in strict products liability because was raft was incidental to rafting services]; Hennigan v.

  • Name

    POLANCO VS. LYFT, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01065850

  • Hearing

    May 13, 2021

Strict Liability With respect to strict liability, Coastal Oral argues it cannot be held liable on a products liability claim because its primary purpose was to provide dental care and treatment, and that any product used during an implantation procedure is incidental to that care. In support, Coastal Oral cites to Hennigan v.

  • Name

    MARCELLA ANDERSON V. KENNETH GOLDBERG, DMD

  • Case No.

    20CV-0062

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of action for negligence and strict products liability. Both causes of action are pled against Frogurt and Does 1-50. At this time, Frogurt moves for judgment on the pleadings on the second cause of action for strict products liability. Frogurt correctly notes that the complaint, at ¶7, alleges Does 21-50 designed, manufactured, sold, and/or introduced the subject chair into the stream of commerce.

  • Name

    ANDREA VIGLIETTA-PICHLER VS FROGURT EMPIRE INC

  • Case No.

    BC619381

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2018

Strict products liability: "Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 432, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443, sets forth the two tests for strict products liability in California. "[A] product may be found defective in design, so as to subject a manufacturer to strict liability for resulting injuries, under either of two alternative tests.

  • Name

    WILLIAM FRULLANI VS. SAN NUTRITION

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00471501-CU-PL-VTA

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2016

Defendant’s general demurrer to the third cause of action for strict products liability on the ground that the product for was safe for its intended use is OVERRULED. The complaint alleges sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for strict products liability. Whether the chicken in question contained a defect rendering it hazardous and unfit for human consumption is a question of fact not appropriate for determination by demurrer.

  • Name

    LANCE ROSCOE VS. FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    15CV-02771

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2018

Plaintiffs causes of action were strict products liability- design defect, strict products liability- manufacturing defect, strict products liability- failure to warn, negligence- products liability, and medical negligence. On April 22, 2021, Defendants LivaNova Deutschland GmbH and LivaNova Holding USA filed applications for Delmar R. Ehrich and Joseph Winebrenner to appear as counsel pro hac vice. No oppositions have been filed. Trial is set for January 14, 2022.

  • Name

    PEGGY KOGA, ET AL. VS LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND, GMBH, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV28954

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2021

Analysis Cruz relies on three theories of liability in the third cause of action, namely strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Each theory is addressed in turn. A. Strict Products Liability “The doctrine of strict products liability imposes strict liability in tort on the manufacturer of a defective product and others in the product’s chain of distribution.” (Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 173, 181-82.)

  • Name

    BENJAMIN CRUZ V. GREAT NORTHERN EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTING, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    16CV297872

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2018

Demurrer – Strict Products Liability The California Supreme Court has held that “a pharmacy is immune from strict [products] liability” because a pharmacist’s “conduct in filling a prescription is to be deemed a service.” (Murphy v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 672, 680.) In an attempt to counter this controlling authority, Plaintiff cites to a Supreme Court opinion involving a claim for strict products liability brought against a drug manufacturer, Brown v.

  • Name

    JAMES NICHOLS VS WALGREEN CO., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV07035

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2019

Per Ontiveros v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 424, 434, a business that purchases a product for the purpose of using the product in its business is not liable under a strict products liability theory if the product does not perform properly. In those situations, the business is considered to be the “end user” of the product, and the strict products liability theory does not apply to it. Pursuant to Ferrari v.

  • Name

    ELEANORA MURPH VS NBC UNIVERSAL THEME PARKS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC703568

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

They argue that persons entitled to recover under strict products liability include bystanders injured by a defective product. Plaintiffs alternatively request leave to amend. The Reply asserts that Plaintiffs misunderstand W-W’s position, which is that absent direct physical injury from the product or use of the product, a bystander witness cannot assert a separate products liability claim. In other words, only Dennis has a products liability claim. Also, W-W is not demurring to the NIED claim (4th c/ac).

  • Name

    ELLER VS CITY OF NORCO

  • Case No.

    CVRI2202825

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

The Court finds merit to these arguments that NTS need not be the ultimate consumer or purchaser of the MAFFS part or that the MAFFS had to be sold in order for UAC to be subject to strict products liability. Nevertheless, there are still other issues with the strict products liability cause of action as discussed in this order, such that this cause of action is not adequately pled.

  • Name

    JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV31797

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Liability Against Lycoming; (8) Strict Products Liability Against HBD; and (9) Negligence Products Liability Against HBD.

  • Name

    GRACE GANGAPERSAUD, ET AL. VS ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV12593

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (FAC) on July 14, 2022 which added causes of action for negligent hiring retention and supervision and strict products liability. Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser LLC and Rasier-CA, LLC filed their demurrer on August 30, 2022. Summary Moving Arguments Moving Defendants demur to Plaintiffs third cause of action for strict products liability on the grounds that the FAC fails to plead facts constituting the cause of action.

  • Name

    AVELARDO ART LUNA, JR VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV10806

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2022

The Court previously denied adjudication of the 2nd cause of action for strict products liability as Defendants did not establish at the time of their Motion for Summary Judgment/ Adjudication that they were not involved in the making or marketing of the zip-line. Strict liability in tort extends to all those engaged in the chain of distribution, including those involved in the “marketing enterprise.” San Diego Hospital Assn. v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. App. 4th 8, 13 (Cal. App. 4th Dist.1994).

  • Name

    BARBARA LOUGHLIN VS SANTA CATALINA ISLAND RESORT SERVICES IN

  • Case No.

    BC536280

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2016

Konecranes contends that the strict products liability claim against it fails because Konecranes was not part of the chain of distribution, and causation fails because the VFD was not a substantial cause of Plaintiff’s injury. “The doctrine of strict products liability imposes strict liability in tort on all of the participants in the chain of distribution of a defective product.” (Bostick v. Flex Equip. Co. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 80, 88.)

  • Name

    CHASE HOLLOWAY ET AL VS MARUICHI AMERICAN CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    BC681620

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action – Products Liability Several types of products liability cases exist, including three major theories: strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. A prima facie case of strict product liability requires plaintiff to demonstrate that (a) the product was legally “defective;” (b) the product defendant was causally connected to the defect; and (c) plaintiff suffered injury as a proximate result of the defect.

  • Name

    ANNA ALLGEIER VS STARBUCKS CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC700904

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2018

Defendants shall file their answers, if at all, within 10 days. 1st cause of action, strict products liability. The FAC alleges facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. It alleges a strict liability design-defect claim under both the consumer expectation test and the risk/benefit test. (See Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 432; see also FAC ¶¶ 42-55.) 2nd cause of action, negligent products liability. The FAC alleges facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action.

  • Name

    ZEKRIA V. MIRAMAR LABS

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01075859

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

Second Cause of Action for Strict Products Liability- Design Defect There are two alternative criteria in ascertaining a design defect for purposes of strict products liability.

  • Case No.

    CV2101710

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2023

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Second Cause of Action for Strict Products Liability- Design Defect There are two alternative criteria in ascertaining a design defect for purposes of strict products liability.

  • Case No.

    CV2101710

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2023

  • County

    Marin County, CA

The demurring Defendant Enterprise relies on extrinsic evidence that it is not liability for a strict liability cause of action. Enterprise does not attack the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s pleadings. Accordingly, the demurrer to the strict products liability cause of action is OVERRULED. B.

  • Name

    EMILIE REILEY ET AL. VS DANNY SIHAVONG ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001134

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2021

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

On September 20, 2018, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) medical malpractice, (2) medical battery, (3) medical malpractice – lack of informed consent, (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect, (5) negligent design, (6) negligence, (7) strict products liability – failure to warn, (8) negligent products liability – failure to warn, and (9) misrepresentation.

  • Name

    ROCHEL DISI VS TAD TANOURA M D ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC707011

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

When OCEAN CRYSTAL asked Plaintiff to identify all documents supporting his claim for strict products liability, Plaintiff stated discovery and investigation were continuing and failed to identify any responsive documents. (See Response to Sp. Rog No. 10.)

  • Name

    BATTIKHI VS. NOBU NEWPORT BEACH

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01098971

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2021

The Demurrer filed by Defendant Westwood Open MRI LLC, RAD Alliance Inc., and Michael Whitney is overruled as to the 2nd Cause of Action (General Negligence) and sustained with leave to amend as to the 3rd Cause of Action (Products Liability).Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice is granted.As to the general negligence claim, it is sufficiently alleged.As to the products liability claim, the Defendants are medical providers and are not liable under this theory of relief for products used in connection with

  • Name

    DAVID W MANN VS WESTWOOD OPEN MRI LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC673447

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2018

[A] plaintiff may seek recovery in a products liability case either on the theory of strict liability in tort or on the theory of negligence. [Citation.] ( Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 478 ( Merrill ).) The rules of products liability focus responsibility for defects, whether negligently or nonnegligently caused, on the manufacturer of the completed product. [Citation.] ( Id. at pp. 478479.)

  • Name

    FREDA PORTER, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ESTRELLA 1980 LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV14827

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Thus, without more, the court cannot determine that a products liability cause of action under the strict liability theory is unavailable to plaintiffs.

  • Name

    ERICA ANDRADE VS. SHANNON SOLIZ, R.N.

  • Case No.

    21CECG00235

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2022

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Concealment, Aiding and Abetting, Negligence Per Se, Premises Liability, Strict Products Liability Failure to Warn, Strict Products Liability Design Defect, Strict Products Liability Manufacturing, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

  • Name

    ANA MELARA VS SAM'S WEST, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV35574

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiffs’ FAC, filed on November 13, 2018, asserts the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Gross Negligence; (3) Strict Products Liability – Design Defect; (4) Strict Products Liability – Failure to Warn; (5) Strict Products Liability – Breach of Express Warranty; (6) Strict Products Liability – Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (7) Strict Products Liability – Negligent Misrepresentation; (8) Wrongful Death; and (9) Loss of Consortium.

  • Name

    JORGE RUIZ ET AL VS BRYAN ROJAS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC698517

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

Accordingly, the Court agrees that the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for strict products liability. Products Liability - Negligence In the context of a products liability lawsuit, [u]nder a negligence theory, [in addition to duty, breach, and causation] a plaintiff must also prove an additional element, namely, that the defect in the product was due to negligence of the defendant. [Citation.] ( Gonzalez v. Autoliv ASP, Inc.

  • Name

    BARBARA JOHNSTON VS PALMS THAI, INC.

  • Case No.

    23STCV10180

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2023

As indicated by Hyundai in Reply, “although Plaintiff only pled two counts against [Hyundai] (strict products liability and negligent products liability), each of the above claims is actually a separate cause of action for summary adjudication purposes.” (Reply p.2, fn. 1.)

  • Name

    JORGE ROMO VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC570364

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Strict Products Liability—Design Defect; 2. Strict Products Liability—Manufacturing Defect; 3. Strict Products Liability—Failure to Warn; 4. Negligence Product Liability. None of the Does defendants have been specifically named and the employer’s insurer, Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, administered by Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies (Redwood Fire) has filed a Notice of First Lien, based on its status as the workers’ compensation carrier for Alpha Materials, Inc., plaintiff’s employer.

  • Name

    NELSON VS DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE

  • Case No.

    RIC1906123

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

(SCPMG) and Helda Priscila Marroquin Molina (Molina) for strict products liability design defect, strict products liability manufacturing defect, strict products liability failure to warn, negligence products liability, medical negligence and survival action. On July 21, 2021, LD and LH filed an answer. On July 26, 2022, the Court dismissed KFHP, KFH and SCPMG, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiffs request.

  • Name

    ESTATE OF MANUEL MARROQUIN, BY AND THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST MIRIAM MARROQUIN, ET AL. VS LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND, GMBH, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV18083

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(SCPMG) for strict products liability design defect, strict products liability manufacturing defect, strict products liability failure to warn, products liability negligence and medical negligence. On December 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the FAC, adding Defendants Livanova Deutschland, GMBH (LD) and Livanova Holding USA, Inc. (LH). On March 15, 2022, KFHP, KHF, and SCPMG filed an answer. On April 25, 2022, LD and LH filed an answer.

  • Name

    DANAE LOCATELLI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO DECEDENT DORA OTRAMBO, ET AL. VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLANE, INC., A CALIFORNIA ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV45265

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Strict Products Liability The elements of a cause of action for strict products liability are (1) a defect in the manufacture or design of the product or failure to warn, (2) causation, and (3) injury. Plaintiff must also show that (1) the product is placed on the market, (2) there is knowledge that it will be used without inspection for defect, (3) the product proves to be defective, and (4) the defect causes injury. (Nelson v. Superior Court (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 689, 695.)

  • Name

    JOSE VILLANUEVA VS LKQ BEST AUTOMOTIVE CORP

  • Case No.

    BC710166

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2020

CAUSES OF ACTION IN COMPLAINT: 1) Negligence 2) Products Liability - Strict Liability 3) Products Liability - Negligence RELIEF REQUESTED: Summary Judgment of the Complaint DISCUSSION: This hearing concerns the motion of Defendant, Otis Elevator Co. for summary judgment. Under CCP section 437c, the Defendant has the burden of offering facts that demonstrate that the Plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of her causes of action.

  • Name

    ROSARIO ROMERO VS DISNEY FACILITIES SERVICE AND SUPPORT ET A

  • Case No.

    BC621826

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2017

Morgan’s motion seeks summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of the claims for negligence, strict products liability (issues 2 through four in the separate statement seek summary adjudication to strict products liability based on different legal arguments), and breach of warranty. The second cause of action for products liability contains three separate claims – strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.

  • Name

    TANGER VS PALFINGER LIFTGATES LLC

  • Case No.

    RIC2001612

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

The California courts have not addressed the issue whether an animal is a "product," nor have they adopted Restatement (Third) for products liability, notwithstanding it has been in existence since 1989. Restatement (Third) Torts, Products Liability, § 19, subd. (a) provides "A product is tangible personal property distributed commercially for use or consumption..."

  • Name

    PANKEY VS. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES INC

  • Case No.

    37-2014-00004156-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2016

The Alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to Strict Liability – Design Defect. The Motion is DENIED with respect to Manufacturing Defect, Duty to Warn and Negligence. The Court finds triable issues of fact as to whether Imprimis Pharmaceuticals is a manufacturer subject to strict products liability. Further, the Court finds triable issues of fact as to whether as a manufacturer, Imprimis was negligent in development and delivery of the drug at issue.

  • Name

    JOHN ERICK SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO AND WRONGFUL DEATH HEIRS OF JADE ERICK VS. KIM D KELLY ND MPH

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00005222-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

Moving Defendant has met its burden under CCP 437c(o)(2) of showing that Plaintiffs cannot establish the elements of a cause of action for strict products liability, negligent products liability and/or negligence. (See Material Fact Nos. 1-24, which the court finds have been established.) By way of opposition, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of raising a triable issue of material fact. No evidence supports a defect in the manufacture of the tractor.

  • Name

    MARIA DE JESUS LUNA VS. LANDINI USA

  • Case No.

    56-2016-00485413-CU-PL-VTA

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2018

  • Judge

    Vincent O'Neill

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

As noted in McMillin, “the text and legislative history [of the Right to Repair Act] reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Act.” As plaintiff may not assert common law claims for negligence and strict products liability based on the allegations of the complaint, the demurrer must be sustained.

  • Name

    CSAA INS. EXCHANGE VS. LEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., INC., ET AL

  • Case No.

    S-CV-0041357

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2018

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that strict products liability is applicable to Lyft through a stream of commerce theory. A defendant may be held strictly liable for its product if the plaintiff was injured while using the product in a reasonably foreseeable way. In order for there to be strict liability, the product does not have to be unreasonably dangerousjust defective. Products liability may be premised upon a theory of design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn. ( Romine v.

  • Name

    ALFREDO HUERTA-MONDRAGON VS LYFT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV07961

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiffs initially did not oppose the portion of defendant's motion arguing plaintiffs cannot prevail on their products liability causes of action. Assuming without deciding that the court can consider the new arguments and evidence provided in plaintiffs' supplemental briefing, plaintiffs did not create a triable issue whether defendant is liable under a theory of strict products liability. Elsheref v.

  • Name

    ELAINE PERCY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC09275431

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2014

Discussion Products Liability First Count for Strict Liability A strict products liability cause of action can be based on manufacturing defects, design defects, or inadequate warnings or failures to warn. (See Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 995.) In order to be liable for strict products liability, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant produced, manufactured, sold, or was in some way responsible for the product. ( Garcia v. Joseph Vince Co

  • Name

    ISABEL CAMPOS VS 3550 GRAND OAKS, CORONA, CA, 92881

  • Case No.

    19STCV23116

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2022

Here, as Plaintiff has already been given leave to amend but failed to cure the defects and the law is clear that one can not a products liability cause of action for known risks, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer as to the 1 st cause of action for strict products liability WITHOUT leave to amend. 2.

  • Name

    MERCEDES SEVILLA VS STARBUCKS CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV25883

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CASE NO: BC647266 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff, Cynthia and Janet Preiss filed this action against Defendants, Nortek Security & Control, LLC and Critical Signal Technologies, Inc. for damages arising out of negligence and strict products liability. Plaintiffs allege they purchased a personal emergency response system from Defendants, but it did not work inside their home.

  • Name

    CYNTHIA PREISS ET AL VS NORTEK SECURITY & CONTROL LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC647266

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2017

Strict Products Liability/Negligent Products Liability/Breach of Implied Warranty/Breach of Express Warranty Strict products liability requires: (1) a product placed in the market; (2) defendant’s knowledge that it will be used without inspection for defect; (3) defect in the manufacture or design of the product, or failure to warn; (4) causation; and (5) injury. ( Nelson v. Sup. Ct. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 689, 695.)

  • Name

    KEEGAN CARRICO VS MEDTRONIC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV26594

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

(SCPMG) and Helda Priscila Marroquin Molina (Molina) for strict products liability design defect, strict product s liability manufacturing defect, strict products liability failure to warn, negligence products liability, medical negligence and survival action. On July 21, 2021, LD and LH field an answer. On July 26, 2022, the Court dismissed KFHP, KFH and SCPMG were dismissed, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiffs request.

  • Name

    ESTATE OF MANUEL MARROQUIN, BY AND THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST MIRIAM MARROQUIN, ET AL. VS LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND, GMBH, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV18083

  • Hearing

    Apr 10, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AND SANCTIONS AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION Background Plaintiff Earl Douberley (Plaintiff) filed this action on April 16, 2020 against Defendant Alexander Andrew, Inc. d/b/a FallTech, alleging causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) strict products liability design defect, (3) strict products liability manufacture defect, (4) strict products liability failure to warn, (5) breach of express warranty, (6) breach of implied warranty, and (7) negligent misrepresentation.

  • Name

    EARL DOUBERLEY VS ALEXANDER ANDREW, INC. (D/B/A FALLTECH) , ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV14748

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

In light of this new evidence, Plaintiff moves the court to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for strict products liability against Sears Roebuck and add Sears Roebuck as an additional defendant. No opposition has been filed. Plaintiff alleges claims for: 1. General Negligence 2.

  • Name

    KARLA WALTERS VS JACKLYN CATHERIN BROWN

  • Case No.

    BC620606

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2018

Strict Products Liability Design Defect; 3. Strict Products Liability Manufacturing Defect; 4. Strict Products Liability Failure to Warn; and 5. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. Plaintiffs dismissed CGI, Inc. on May 5, 2021. Plaintiffs named Jack Access Control, Inc. and Telecom Network Technologies Inc. as Doe Defendants. Both Jack Access and Telecom filed cross-complaints. On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs dismissed Jack Access Control.

  • Name

    JEREMY LOPEZ, ET AL. VS ADOBE COMMUNITIES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV36588

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 08/06/15 against defendants for: (1) strict products liability; (2) strict components liability; and (3) negligence. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint which will eliminate the first and third cause of action and replace them with statutory claims in order to comply with a recent decision of the Supreme Court of California. (See Motion, p. 3:20-24.)

  • Name

    5601 W OLYMPIC HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION VS BURNSIDE LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC590378

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2018

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 18, 2021, alleging seven causes of action the following causes of action: 1) strict products liability design defect, 2). strict products liability manufacturing, 3) strict products liability warning defect, 4) products liability negligence, 5) products liability breach of express warranty, 6) products liability breach of implied warranty, and 7) negligence.

  • Name

    JOHN KIZZIAR VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV18698

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Costco argues that the facts alleged do not support a products liability cause of action against it, contending that there was no product or purchase of a product involved in the incident. Costco cites to Peterson v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1185 in support of its argument, in which a hotel patron sued a hotel proprietor for strict liability for injuries caused by a bathtub that the plaintiff alleged was too slick and slippery. Id., at 1189.

  • Name

    ELISA CASTANON VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC626113

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2016

The court sustains Defendants' demurrer to the amended form complaint, with ten days leave to amend, to provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to state specifically the grounds upon which he asserts his strict products liability claim against C.R. Bard, Inc. and to allege facts that support a strict products liability claim based on a theory of defective manufacturing or on the theory that the defendant distributed the product without adequate warnings.

  • Name

    NICHOLAS LITTLE VS. DAVOL INCORPORATED ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC13534402

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2015

Discussion Products Liability First Count for Strict Liability A strict products liability cause of action can be based on manufacturing defects, design defects, or inadequate warnings or failures to warn. (See Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 995.) In order to be liable for strict products liability, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant produced, manufactured, sold, or was in some way responsible for the product. ( Garcia v. Joseph Vince Co.

  • Name

    ISABEL CAMPOS VS 3550 GRAND OAKS, CORONA, CA, 92881

  • Case No.

    19STCV23116

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2021

However, Uber Defendants demur only to the strict products liability cause of action. Plaintiffs opposition does not address any of the arguments raised in the demurrer. In effect, Plaintiff concedes his strict products liability claim is defective. Based on the foregoing, the demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED.

  • Name

    PETE MARTINEZ VS BHUPENDRA SINGH VIRK, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV09795

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Only two of the causes of action are asserted against the moving Defendants: (1) the first general negligence claim, and (2) the products liability cause of action. The products liability cause of action asserts two counts.

  • Name

    SANCHEZ ORTIZ VS COSTCO WHOLESALE

  • Case No.

    MSC20-02208

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2023

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

DISCUSSION RE LYFTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Lyft moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the 9 th cause of action for strict products liability in the TAC. The doctrine of strict products liability holds that [a] manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.

  • Name

    RYAN LARSON, ET AL. VS LYFT INC A DELAWARE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    20STCV18606

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Concealment, Aiding and Abetting, Negligence Per Se, Premises Liability, Strict Products Liability Failure to Warn, Strict Products Liability Design Defect, Strict Products Liability Manufacturing, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

  • Name

    ANA MELARA VS SAM'S WEST, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV35574

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Products Liability Defendant also argues that Plaintiff failed to allege facts demonstrating a Products Liability claim regarding the subject kettlebell. Several types of products li ability cases exist, including three major theories: strict products li ability, breach of warranty, and negligence. Strict product liability focuses on the product itself, not the conduct of the manufacturer. ( Carlin v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1104, 1110.)

  • Name

    ROMUALDO QUINTAL, III, ET AL. VS BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS CORP., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV18435

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Third Cause of Action – Strict Products Liability for Design Defect The elements of a strict products liability cause of action are a defect in the manufacture or design of the product or a failure to warn, causation, and injury. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.) In order to be liable for strict products liability, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant “produced, manufactured, sold, or was in some way responsible for the product.” (Garcia v.

  • Name

    BARBARA PIETROWSKI VALDEZ ET AL VS SMITH & NEPHEW INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC684293

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

“‘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.’ [Citation.]” (Johnson v. United States Steel Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 22, 30.) A plaintiff may seek recovery in a products liability case on theories of both negligence and strict liability. (Jiminez v.

  • Name

    BHARTI DHALWALA VS QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC656895

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2019

Strict Liability Design Defect (v. Linde and Messer) 4. Strict Liability Mfg Defect (v. Linde and Messer) 5. Strict Liability Failure to Warn (v. Linde and Messer) 6. Negligence Products Liability (v. Linde and Messer) 7. Negligence - Failure to Warn (v. Linde and Messer) 8.

  • Name

    ANA JIMENEZ,, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF THE ESTATE OF MA ESTHER LETICIA OSYGUSS, DECEASED, ET AL. VS GOLDEN WEST FOOD GROUP, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV00562

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages pursuant to his fourth cause of action for strict products liability – design defect, and fifth cause of action for strict products liability – failure to warn, both of which are asserted against non-moving defendants Two Family Enterprises, Inc., Silverco Enterprises, and Ford Motor Company. (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 78.)

  • Name

    WILLIAM DOUGLAS FISHER VS TWO FAMILY ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV40793

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

A plaintiff may seek recovery in a products liability case either on the theory of strict liability in tort or on the theory of negligence. ( Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 478.) Under either a negligence or a strict liability theory of products liability, to recover from a manufacturer, a plaintiff must prove that a defect caused injury. ( Id . at 479.)

  • Name

    SOPHIA NATALIE SANCHEZ ET AL VS ULTRAMAR INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC716805

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Thus, the FAC sufficiently alleges a cause of action for negligent products liability for purposes of withstanding demurrer. The demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED. Second Cause of Action – Wrongful Death: Products LiabilityStrict Products LiabilityStrict product liability may be premised upon a theory of design defect, manufacturing defect or failure to warn.” ( Chavez v. Glock, Inc . (“Chavez”) (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1302.)

  • Name

    XISHI TAN VS SUPERPRINT LITHOGRAPHICS, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV08517

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Strict Products Liability 2. Breach of Express and Implied Warranties 3. Negligence based on Defective Product 4. Negligence and Premises Liability 5.

  • Name

    KARINA LOPEZ VS SUBWAY RESTAURANTS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22NWCV00913

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Sufficiency of First Cause of Action Plaintiffs first cause of action asserts a claim for strict products liability. Californias products liability doctrine provides generally that manufacturers, retailers, and others in the marketing chain of a product are strictly liable in tort for personal injuries caused by a defective product. ( Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, 575.)

  • Name

    JAMES SHAW, ET AL. VS WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV36986

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Several types of products liability cases exist, including three major theories: strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. Strict product liability focuses on the product itself, not the conduct of the manufacturer. ( Carlin v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1104, 1110.) [A] products liability claimant must meet a condition precedent to successfully maintain the action.

  • Name

    FRANCOIS BEHUET, ET AL. VS UBER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV26056

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Wile’s products liability cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations; 2) Mrs. Wile’s strict products liability claim fails based on the absence of facts to prove all the elements; 3) Mrs. Wile’s negligent products liability claim fails based on the absence of facts to prove all the elements; and 4) Mrs. Wile’s premises liability cause of action against Ralphs fails because Ralphs did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition. Mrs.

  • Name

    LANICCA WILE ET AL VS THE KROGER CO

  • Case No.

    BC520155

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2016

First, second, third, and fourth causes of action for products liability – a products liability claim in a strict liability or negligence case must be based on physical harm to person or property other than the product itself. Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege an injury to his person or property other than the product (brake hose) itself. As such, the economic loss rule also applies. (See County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318; Jimenez v.

  • Case No.

    Elsayed vs. Maserati North America, Inc. 2016-00848542

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

First, second, third, and fourth causes of action for products liability – a products liability claim in a strict liability or negligence case must be based on physical harm to person or property other than the product itself. Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege an injury to his person or property other than the product (brake hose) itself. As such, the economic loss rule also applies. (See County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318; Jimenez v.

  • Name

    ELSAYED VS. MASERATI NORTH AMERICA, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00848542-CU-PL-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings: Melchiori Construction (for purposes of this motion, simply, �Melchiori�) moves for judgment on the pleadings as to two of the three counts of products liability. (Melchiori is also named in the general negligence cause of action and the negligence portion of the products liability cause of action but does not move for judgment as to those causes of action.)

  • Name

    ESTATE OF ESTANISLAO JOSE RAMOS VS MOHAMED AMER ET AL

  • Case No.

    1401551

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2014

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on January 02, 2018, alleging five (5) causes of action sounding in: (1) Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; (3) Strict Products Liability (Design Defect); (4) Strict Liability (Failure to Warn); and (5) Products Liability (Negligence). PRESENTATION: The Court received the instant motion filed by Defendant on February 16, 2021; the opposition filed by Plaintiff on March 19, 2021; and the reply filed by Defendant on April 02, 2021.

  • Name

    CHUCKRID HUTAYANA VS YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF

  • Case No.

    BC696346

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2021

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

There is law that questions whether a public entity can be sued for strict products liability at all, since negligence or culpability is not a necessary ingredient of strict products liability, and because strict products liability is a unique, court-fashioned doctrine, not statutory. (Tolan v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 980, 986-987.)

  • Name

    GABRIEL MENDOZA V. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    17CECG00649

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2017

Causation Causation is an essential element of strict and negligent products liability, negligence, and breach of implied warrant y of merchantability. (See Merrill v. Navegar , Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 479 [products liability]; McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC¿ (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671 [negligence]; Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1246-1247 [implied warranty of merchantability].)

  • Name

    STACY HILL ET AL VS CHILIS BAR AND GRILL ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC721959

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

So, there do not appear to be sufficient facts to demonstrate this lawsuit is a sham. 1st COA (STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY), 2nd COA (NEGLIGENT PRODUCTS LIABILITY), and 3rd COA (BREACH OF WARRANTY): 1st COA Plaintiff pleads “There was a defect in The Vehicle because Black & White did not have an authority to rent The Vehicle or have a right to possess the vehicle as evidenced by the fact that CRAFT reported The Vehicle stolen.”

  • Name

    MAHMOUD VS. CRAFT

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00930951-CU-PL-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2018

First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action Plaintiffs allege against Defendant Pharmacy: (1) strict products liability – failure to warn (first cause of action); (2) strict products liability – defective product (second cause of action); (3) breach of implied warranty (fifth cause of action); and (4) breach of express warranty (sixth cause of action). A strict products liability cause of action will not lie against a pharmacy who provides a service of dispensing drugs prescribed by a physician.

  • Case No.

    Medina, et al. v. Lee, et al. 30-2015-00827361-CU-JR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2016

The FAC alleges 5 causes of action for 1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, 2) strict products liability, 3) negligence, 4) breach of contract, and 5) UCL violations. Only the 2nd (strict products liability), 3rd (negligence) and 5th (UCL violations) causes of action are alleged as to moving Defendant DSI Logistics, LLC.

  • Name

    ROUX VS DSI LOGISITICS, LLC

  • Case No.

    CVPS2105996

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action Plaintiffs allege against Defendant Pharmacy: (1) strict products liability – failure to warn (first cause of action); (2) strict products liability – defective product (second cause of action); (3) breach of implied warranty (fifth cause of action); and (4) breach of express warranty (sixth cause of action). A strict products liability cause of action will not lie against a pharmacy who provides a service of dispensing drugs prescribed by a physician.

  • Name

    MEDINA, ET AL. V. LEE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00827361-CU-MM-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2016

Plaintiffs also cites the Reporter's Note, "If the pet is diseased the time of sale, courts have considered the pet a product, and have extended strict liability to any harm caused by the disease." (Reporter's Note to Rest. 3d Torts: Products Liability §19, com. b.)

  • Name

    PANKEY VS. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES INC

  • Case No.

    37-2014-00004156-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2016

Products Liability – Breach of Warranties (SHARK Helmets North America, LLC).

  • Name

    KRISTIN HIRAI, ET AL. VS SKATING EDGE ICE ARENA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV30280

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(M&F), Norton Sales, Inc., Triad, and Nino for: (1) negligence; and (2) strict products liability. D.

  • Name

    JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV31797

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

It alleges the following causes of action: (1) Negligence/reckless conduct; (2) Products liability-negligence; (3) Products liability-failure to warn; (4) Products liability-strict liability; (5) Products liability-breach of warranties; (6) Products liability-misrepresentation and concealment; (7) Negligent infliction of emotional distress (bystander); (8) Survival action; and (9) Declaratory relief The instant motion: · Specially appearing defendants Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

  • Name

    ARMANDO MARTINEZ ET AL VS MAAN PARAMPAREET SINGH ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC678506

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2018

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

Plaintiff disagrees, contending that strict products liability relates to raw land and construction activities. To sufficiently allege strict liability, plaintiff must allege that defendant “produced, manufactured, sold, or was in some way responsible for the product.” (Garcia v. Joseph Vince Co. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 868, 874; see also CACI 1200.)

  • Name

    MATA V. JOHNSTONE CONTRACTING, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18CECG02218

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2018

Moving party has shown it cannot be liable for the other prongs available to prove a products liability case under a strict liability theory: design or manufacturing defect. Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal. 2d 256 is inapposite. There the problem component was made part of the vehicle during the original manufacturing process. Here, the evidence is that the gasket was never part of Bull BBQ’s design or manufacture process. 2.

  • Name

    BELTRAN V. FPA4 ARBOR RIDGE, LLC

  • Case No.

    16CECG03463

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2018

As to Plaintiffs' claim for products liability under either a design defects or failure to warn theory of liability,the Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend so that Plaintiffsmay include the specific factual allegations in the part of the complaint pertinent to products liability. The specific design defect, if any, should be identified.

  • Case No.

    2021-00559820

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2022

As such, demurrer to the products liability causes of action for strict liability and negligence (failure to warn) based on Murphy is OVERRULED. II.

  • Name

    ESTATE OF JAKLIN RASEKHNIA, A DECEASED INDIVIDUAL BY AND THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR JOSEPH KOHAN, ET AL. VS PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV22419

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Products Liability Cause of Action “[A] plaintiff may seek recovery in a ‘products liability case’ either ‘on the theory of strict liability in tort or on the theory of negligence.’ [Citations.]” ( Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 478.) Products liability may be premised upon a theory of design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn. ( Anderson v. Owens–Corning Fiberglas Corp . (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 995.)

  • Name

    SHIRLEY YOUNG ET AL VS MARK GABAY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC661305

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Products Liability Defendant argues Plaintiff cannot establish the cause of action for products liability because Plaintiff cannot establish the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty, or negligence. Strict Liability Plaintiff alleges strict liability against Defendant. Strict product liability attaches upon proof of the product defect and a sufficient causal connection between defendant, the product and plaintiff's injury. ( See Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

  • Name

    LINDA RAPPOPORT VS INVASIX, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV41245

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2022

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope