How To Prove A California Negligence – Manufacturer or Supplier (Product Liability) Claim

In California, a claim of Negligence – Manufacturer or Supplier (Product Liability) is defined as:
The obligation and responsibility that manufacturers and those who are in the distribution chain of sales to the public to deliver goods that are without defects which could cause harm and are strictly liable for injuries that may occur.
It simply means:
Anyone in the manufacturing or supply chain can be sued if a product is defective and causes injury or damages.
There are 7 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant manufactured, distributed, or sold a product. The defendant created, sold, or shared a product that is being questioned in a legal case, which means they are responsible for what happens if that product causes harm due to being unsafe or defective.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant designed and manufactured the product in question, which was sold to consumers through various retail outlets.
* The defendant distributed the product to multiple retailers, ensuring it reached a wide consumer base.
* The product was marketed by the defendant as safe for use, despite known safety concerns.
* The defendant had control over the production process, including quality assurance measures for the product.
* The defendant received complaints about the product’s safety prior to the incident, indicating awareness of potential hazards. - Element 2. The defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the product was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner. The defendant was aware, or should have been aware, that their product could be harmful or pose risks when used correctly or incorrectly in ways that a typical person might reasonably expect.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The manufacturer received multiple reports of injuries associated with the product prior to the incident, indicating a known risk of danger.
* Testing conducted by the manufacturer revealed that the product could malfunction under specific conditions, which were foreseeable during normal use.
* Industry standards for safety were not met in the design of the product, suggesting a disregard for potential hazards.
* The product’s packaging included warnings that were insufficient to inform users of the risks associated with misuse.
* The manufacturer had access to research indicating that similar products had caused harm, yet failed to implement necessary safety measures. - Element 3. The defendant knew or reasonably should have known that users would not realize the danger. This means that the company or person who made or sold the product was aware, or should have been aware, that customers might not understand the risks involved with using it, which could lead to harm or injury.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The manufacturer conducted market research indicating that consumers often misinterpret the product’s safety warnings.
* The product’s design included features that could easily be mistaken for safety assurances, misleading users about potential hazards.
* Previous incidents involving similar products were documented, yet the manufacturer failed to implement adequate safety measures or warnings.
* The manufacturer received complaints from users about the product’s safety but did not take corrective action or issue a warning.
* Industry standards recommended clearer labeling for similar products, but the manufacturer chose not to comply. - Element 4. The defendant failed to adequately warn of the danger or instruct on the safe use of the product. The defendant did not provide enough information about the risks of using the product or how to use it safely, which can lead to accidents or injuries, making them potentially responsible for any harm caused.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The product’s packaging did not include any warnings about potential hazards associated with its use.
* The manufacturer failed to provide clear instructions on how to safely operate the product, leading to user confusion.
* There were no safety labels or cautionary statements on the product itself, despite known risks.
* The defendant did not conduct adequate testing to identify potential dangers before releasing the product to consumers.
* Customer complaints regarding safety issues were ignored, and no updates or warnings were issued to the public. - Element 5. A reasonable manufacturer, distributor, seller under the same or similar circumstances would have warned of the danger or instructed on the safe use of the product. A reasonable manufacturer, distributor, or seller would have provided warnings about potential dangers or guidance on safe usage of a product if they were aware of risks, ensuring that consumers could use the product safely and avoid harm.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The manufacturer had access to extensive research indicating potential hazards associated with the product’s use.
* Similar products in the market included clear warnings and instructions to mitigate risks, demonstrating industry standards.
* The product’s design lacked adequate safety features that could have easily been implemented to prevent user injury.
* Customer complaints about the product’s safety were documented but not addressed by the manufacturer.
* The manufacturer failed to conduct necessary testing that would have revealed the product’s dangers before it was released to consumers. - Element 6. The plaintiff was harmed. The plaintiff was harmed means that the person who is suing experienced some kind of injury or damage, whether physical, emotional, or financial, as a direct result of using a faulty product made or supplied by the manufacturer.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff suffered physical injuries after using the defective product, requiring medical treatment and rehabilitation.
* The plaintiff incurred significant medical expenses due to the injuries sustained from the product malfunction.
* The plaintiff experienced lost wages as a result of being unable to work due to the injuries caused by the product.
* The plaintiff endured emotional distress and pain and suffering as a direct result of the product’s failure.
* The defective product caused property damage, resulting in additional financial burdens for the plaintiff. - Element 7. The defendant’s failure to warn or instruct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. The defendant’s lack of warning or proper instructions about their product played a significant role in causing the harm that the plaintiff experienced.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant did not provide any warning labels on the product, despite knowing it could cause serious injury if misused.
* The product’s instruction manual was incomplete and failed to address critical safety precautions necessary for safe operation.
* The defendant received multiple reports of injuries related to the product but did not take steps to inform consumers of the risks.
* The absence of clear instructions led the plaintiff to use the product incorrectly, resulting in significant harm.
* Industry standards recommend specific warnings for similar products, which the defendant chose not to implement.
(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 1222. Perez v. VAS S.P.A. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 658, 678.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Negligence – Manufacturer or Supplier (Product Liability), having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make critical decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to navigate this complex area of law effectively.
Prove Your CA Negligence – Manufacturer or Supplier (Product Liability) Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only