Strict Products Liability
Do you need the services of a competent personal injury attorney in Southern California including Los Angeles and Orange County? The lawyer in our Orange County office has experience with civil tort actions including personal injury law. If you have been injured or civilly wronged by someone and have sustained damages as a result you should consult an attorney in order to make sure that your legal rights are protected. The lawyer in our office would be happy to assist you with your civil legal problem such as a personal injury action. If you require the services of an experienced attorney, please feel free to contact a personal injury lawyer in our Orange County office for a consultation regarding your legal issue.
Strict Products Liability General Rule • A commercial seller of a defective product is strictly liable in tort for all damages proximately caused by the defect.
Types of defects:
1. Manufacturing;
2. Design;
3. Lack of Adequate Warning
General Rule:
1. Manufacturer Defect-the particular product failed to conform to the manufacturer’s own specifications
2. Design Defect a) U/R Analysis - (compared to available alternatives), the product as designed, subjected others to an unreasonable risk of harm
3. Lack of Adequate Warning: The product failed to adequately warn of dangers that the manufacturer knew or should have known -individual sellers do not count -resellers’ liable -must be a product -proximate cause -defenses
1. For care compare to to others made by that manufacturer 2. Some jurisdiction require either or UIR or C/E or both -most courts have U/R test -measured at the time of manufacture U/R similar to risk/utility. Different than negligence- focusing on product rather than the Defendant’s conduct negligence is about fault/fault is not important in strict liability (no fault liability). StrictLiability imposes what amounts to constructive knowledge of the condition of the product we don’t care if MFG knew or should have known unlike negligence CE-we care about the ordinary consumer who buys the product. Warning can adequately defeat both tests.
Some courts have an obvious hazard rule. Can’t use recall as culpable conduct in strict liability action-Defendant should say recall should falls under culpable conduct otherwise rule would not apply Culpable-very broad meaning. Some jurisdictions not broad meaning (culpable means fault) and rule doesn’t apply. Also might want to argue the recall was a warning.
Contact Us For More Information
