“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. In a products liability case, a plaintiff may seek recovery on a theory of strict liability or negligence. Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 478.
“‘The elements of a strict products liability cause of action are
Nelson v. Super. Ct. (2006)144 Cal.App.4th 689, 695 citing County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.
“[T]here are three ways to hold a manufacturer strictly liable for injuries caused by its product:
Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1208.
Manufacturing defects arise where a flaw in the manufacturing process creates a product that differs from what the manufacturer intended. Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1057; Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 173, 190 (“a product has a manufacturing defect if the product as manufactured does not conform to the manufacturer’s design.”).
The elements of a products liability claim based on a manufacturing defect are:
See CACI 1201.
A manufacturing defect is the legal cause of injury only if the defect was a substantial factor in producing the injury. Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572.
“A product is defective in design if:
Garrett, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at 182.
The elements of a products liability claim based on design defect are:
See CACI 1203.
A manufacturer of prescription drugs cannot be strictly liable for a design defect and that the appropriate test for determining a prescription drug manufacturer’s liability for a design defect involves an application of the ordinary negligence standard. Brown v. Super. Ct. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1061, 1069. Under the negligence standard as reflected in comment k to section 402A on page 353 of the Restatement Second of Torts, adopted in Brown, a manufacturer is liable for a design defect only if it failed to warn of a defect that it either knew or should have known existed. Brown, supra, at 1059.
Brown explained that the consumer expectations test is inappropriate for prescription drugs because an ordinary consumer would have no safety expectations with respect to a prescription drug apart from the information provided by his or her physician. Brown, supra, 44 Cal.3d at 1061-1062. A prescription drug manufacturer that has provided appropriate warnings to the physician cannot be liable for the physician’s failure to convey those warnings to the patient, and cannot be liable if the patient relies on information provided by others as to the side effects of the drug. Id. at 1062.
“The duty to warn is measured by what is generally known or should have been known to the class of sophisticated users, rather than by the individual plaintiff’s subjective knowledge.” Johnson v. Amer. Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, 65-66. “California law... recognizes the obvious danger rule, which provides that there is no need to warn of known risks under either a negligence or strict liability theory.” Id. at 67.
A product may be dangerous where it lacks adequate warnings or instructions. Brown, supra, at 1057. Generally, manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers of the hazards inherent in the products of which consumers are unaware. Id. In California, liability for failure to warn is conditioned on the manufacturer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the risk. Anderson v. Owens-Cornring Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 1000. The duty to warn applies to all entities in a product’s chain of distribution. Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, 575.
The elements of a products liability claim based on failure to warn are:
CACI 1205.
Product misuse, an affirmative defense, is a superseding cause of injury that absolves a tortfeasor of his or her own wrongful conduct only when the misuse was “so highly extraordinary as to be unforeseeable.” Perez v. VAS S.p.A. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 658, 685, 115; Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1302; see generally CACI No. 1245.
Because it is an affirmative defense, it is incumbent upon the defendant to present evidence supporting each essential element thereof. Huynh v. Ingersoll-Rand (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 825, 830-32. To establish this particular affirmative defense, a defendant must first present evidence showing the plaintiff or a third party misused the product in an unforeseeable manner. Huynh, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at 832-33. The defendant must also show the misuse caused the plaintiff’s injury. Id.
“Foreseeability is a question for the jury unless undisputed facts leave no room for a reasonable difference of opinion.” Torres v. Xomox Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1, 19, 56; Chavez v. Glock, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal. App. 4th 1283, 1308.
“California law... recognizes the obvious danger rule, which provides that there is no need to warn of known risks under either a negligence or strict liability theory.” Johnson v. Amer. Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, 67.
The sophisticated user defense exempts manufacturers from their typical obligation to provide product users with warnings about the products’ potential hazards. Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 56, 65 citing In re Asbestos, 543 F.Supp. at 1151. The defense is considered an exception to the manufacturer’s general duty to warn consumers, and therefore, in most jurisdictions, if successfully argued, acts as an affirmative defense to negate the manufacturer’s duty to warn. Id.
Feb 22, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
Oct 30, 2020
Stanislaus County, CA
Oct 23, 2020
Tharpe, D Tyler
Fresno County, CA
Oct 07, 2020
Butte County, CA
Oct 07, 2020
Butte County, CA
Oct 06, 2020
Butte County, CA
Oct 02, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Sep 30, 2020
Stanislaus County, CA
Sep 16, 2020
Tharpe, D Tyler
Fresno County, CA
Sep 15, 2020
Tharpe, D Tyler
Fresno County, CA
Sep 15, 2020
Placer County, CA
Sep 10, 2020
Tharpe, D Tyler
Fresno County, CA
Sep 08, 2020
Stanislaus County, CA
Sep 01, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Sep 01, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 27, 2020
San Mateo County, CA
Aug 24, 2020
Placer County, CA
Aug 14, 2020
Stanislaus County, CA
Aug 11, 2020
Placer County, CA
Aug 07, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 05, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 05, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 30, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 30, 2020
Placer County, CA
Jul 15, 2020
Placer County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.