Strict Products Liability in California

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Legal Standard for Strict Products 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.) 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.

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

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.

On 7/16/24, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence, (2) Strict Products Liability and (3) Negligent Products Liability. On 7/18/25, the Court sustained Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs second and third causes of action with 30 days leave to amend.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Background This is a products liability case arising from the plaintiffs use of a pressure cooker causing serious burn injuries. On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff Marla Odette Castillo filed suit against Defendant Pick Five Imports, Inc. d/b/a Maxi-Matic U.S.A., Inc. for: 1. Strict Products Liability 2. Negligent Products Liability 3. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability 4. Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Analysis: DEMURRER 3rd Cause of Action for Strict Products Liability “The “strict product liability”theory of recovery exposes a broad range of defendants to legal accountability for “defective” products. Liability attaches upon proof of the product “defect” and a sufficient causal connection between defendant, the product and plaintiff’s injury.” (Haning, et. al., CPG: Personal Injury (TRG 2022) § 2:1175 citing, Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 990, 1000.)

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

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.

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.)

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).

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.

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.

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.

On 7/29/24, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant and others alleging causes of action for: (1) General Negligence, (2) Premises Liability, (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, (4) Strict Products Liability Manufacturing Defect, (5) Strict Products Liability Design Defect, and (6) Strict Products Liability Failure to Warn.

ANALYSIS Defendants demur to the second and third causes of action, arguing that Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to state claims for strict products liability and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Second cause of action: strict products 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.

Third and Fourth Causes of Action (Strict Products Liability, Breach of Warranty) In his third cause of action for strict products liability, Plaintiff alleges that he purchased corrective lenses from Defendants that were to be designed, manufactured and sold in accordance with the prescription of his health care provider, Dr. Yu, which were suitable to correct his vision. (Comp., ¶ 35.)

The above admissions establish a prima facie case that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with regard to Issues 1 (causation), 2 (dangerous condition), 4 (responsibility for damages), 5 (products liability – negligence); 6 (products liability - strict liability); and (7) (products liability - breach of warranty). The admissions do not go so far as to establish, as a matter of law, Issue 3 (harm or injury).

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.

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.

Strict Products Liability The elements of a strict products liability cause of action are defect in the manufacture or design of the product or failure to warn, causation, and injury. ( Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.) Strict liability has been invoked for three types of defectsmanufacturing defects, design defects, and warning defects, i.e., inadequate warnings or failures to warn. ( Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

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.

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.)

Placing products in the stream of commerce implicates liability based on strict products liability, not mere ownership. (See Price , supra , 2 Cal.3d at pp. 252-254.) Moreover, even if the Graves Amendment did apply to this case, it would appear to apply only to Plaintiffs strict product products liability and negligence products liability claims. Defendant has not provided any authority holding that the Graves Amendment applies to breach of express and implied warranty claims.

(2) The Strict Products Liability Cause of Action against Defendants fails because Defendants did not manufacture or own the donation bin. (3) The General Negligence and Strict Products Liability Causes of Actions against Defendants fails because Defendants had no duty to warn Decedent of the danger inherent in her unforeseeable misuse of the donation bin.

[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.)

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

(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.

(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.

Plaintiffs new claim under Public Utilities Code section 5354 In granting Lyfts motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court concluded that the Lyft app was not a product for purposes of the strict products liability claim in Plaintiffs original complaint. The Court granted leave to amend the claim for strict products liability. Plaintiffs new claim under Public Utilities Code section 5354 is not a strict products liability claim.

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.

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.)

(Rest.3d Torts, Products Liability, § 19, subd. (a).) Strict liability is not absolute liability. (Anderson v. Owens–Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 994.) A manufacturer is not an insurer for all injuries that may result from the use of its product; it is liable for injuries caused by a product defect. (Ibid.) ... Strict product liability seeks to hold manufacturers (and others in the stream of commerce) accountable when there is "something wrong" with the product. (Id. at p. 366.) ...

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.

The duty of an innkeeper, therefore, like the duty of a landlord, does not support an action for strict liability.” (Id. at 1206.) The Peterson case dealt with strict products liability, whereas the instant claim is for negligent products liability. As noted above, a strict products liability claim and negligent products liability claim are identical except for the added element in a negligent products liability claim of showing the defect in the product was due to negligence of the defendant. (Merrill v.

Plaintiffs 2 nd cause of action for survival action in the First Amended Complaint was based on the same strict liability design defect, strict liability failure to warn, products liability negligence and breach of implied warranty claims alleged in the original complaint. ( See FAC ¶53).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Plaintiffs reliance on Garcia (1970) 3 CA3d 319 for the proposition that AGR can be held responsible under a strict products liability theory is unavailing as the cases are factual distinguishable. Garcia , supra , held that a laundromat owner could be held liable under a strict products liability theory when a defective washing machine injured a boy when he was trying to remove laundry from the machine.

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.

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.)

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.

(Lyft), and Does 1-50 for negligence, negligent hiring, training, and supervision, and strict products liability. On March 29, 2021, Lyft filed an answer. On May 7, 2021, Shukla filed an answer. On January 25, 2024, the Court granted Lyfts motion for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiffs third cause of action for strict products liability with 30 days leave to amend.

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.

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.

(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.

Manufacturing Defect The essential elements of a claim for strict products liability – manufacturing defect are: 1) that the defendant manufactured/distributed/sold the product; 2) that the product contained a manufacturing defect when it left the defendant’s possession; 3) that plaintiff was harmed; and 4) that the product’s defect was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. (CACI 1201; see also Collins v. Navistar, Inc. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1500.)

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.

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.

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.

Cross-Complaints On August 11, 2023, Charlotte Brazile, individually as successor in interest to the Estate of Kevin Anthony Hudson, filed a cross-complaint against Bazeekian, Mazda, and Hertz for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; (3) strict products liability manufacturing defect strict products; (4) strict products liability design defect; (5) strict products liability failure to warn; (6) breach of implied warranty; (7) wrongful death; and (8) survivorship.

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.)

A strict products liability cause of action does not arise out of the same facts as the negligence claims asserted in the initial complaint, but a negligence products liability claim appears to relate back to the initial negligence claims. However, the cause of action must be clarified to assert specific facts and show that the claim relates back.

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.

(2) The General Negligence and Strict Products Liability Causes of Action (First and Second) against CFC fail because CFC owed no duty to Plaintiffs because Decedents misuse of the donation bin was not reasonably foreseeable. (3) The General Negligence and Strict Products Liability Causes of Action against CFC fails because CFC had no duty to warn Decedent of the danger inherent in her unforeseeable misuse of the subject donation bin.

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.

None of the evidence provided is sufficient for Sunlighten to meet its initial burden to establish that Plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain sufficient evidence to establish causation for the strict products liability claim. For these reasons, the court DENIES both motions for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs complaint and opposition together reveal that he intended his first cause of action to sound in strict products liability. That theory fails on its face. However, [o]ne may seek recovery in a products liability case on theories of both negligence and strict liability. ( Johnson v. United States Steel Corp. , supra , 240 Cal.App.4th, at pp. 30-31, citing Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 379, 387.)

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.

The operative FAC, filed 9/23/25, asserts causes of action for (1) negligence and (2) products liability. The products liability cause of action further alleges 3 counts: strict liability as to Concrete Washout Systems, Inc. (“CWS”) and Atlantic Concrete Washout, Inc. (“Atlantic”), strict liability as to all defendants, and breach of implied warranty as to all defendants. Doe Amendment.

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.

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.

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.

Morgan seeks to add Trueline as a Defendant, seeks to delete Dynamite and Wilcox (who have, as noted above, already been dismissed), seeks to add a cause of action against Trueline for strict products liability, and seeks to amend the background facts and allegations.

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.

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.)

As to Plaintiff AH (24STCV01785) Demurrer Plaintiff AHs First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserts seven causes of action, including (1) strict products liability manufacturing defect, (2) strict products liability design defect, (3) strict products liability failure to warn, (4) negligence/gross negligence, (5) negligence failure to warn, (6) negligence failure to recall, and (7) unjust enrichment. The FAC relies on substantially identical allegations as discussed previously.

As to Plaintiff AH (24STCV01785) Demurrer Plaintiff AHs First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserts seven causes of action, including (1) strict products liability manufacturing defect, (2) strict products liability design defect, (3) strict products liability failure to warn, (4) negligence/gross negligence, (5) negligence failure to warn, (6) negligence failure to recall, and (7) unjust enrichment. The FAC relies on substantially identical allegations as discussed previously.

As to Plaintiff AH (24STCV01785) Demurrer Plaintiff AHs First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserts seven causes of action, including (1) strict products liability manufacturing defect, (2) strict products liability design defect, (3) strict products liability failure to warn, (4) negligence/gross negligence, (5) negligence failure to warn, (6) negligence failure to recall, and (7) unjust enrichment. The FAC relies on substantially identical allegations as discussed previously.

As to Plaintiff AH (24STCV01785) Demurrer Plaintiff AHs First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserts seven causes of action, including (1) strict products liability manufacturing defect, (2) strict products liability design defect, (3) strict products liability failure to warn, (4) negligence/gross negligence, (5) negligence failure to warn, (6) negligence failure to recall, and (7) unjust enrichment. The FAC relies on substantially identical allegations as discussed previously.

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.

“‘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.