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.)