Product liability claims in California are governed by strict-liability principles outlined in CACI 1200–1206. Unlike ordinary negligence cases, product liability does not require proving that the manufacturer acted carelessly — only that the product was defective and caused injury.

To succeed, the plaintiff must establish:

1. Defendant Manufactured, Distributed, or Sold the Product (CACI 1200)

The defendant must be in the chain of commerce:

• Manufacturer
  
• Distributor
  
• Supplier
  
• Retailer
  
• Component-part maker
  

California imposes liability on every entity in the distribution chain, even if they did not directly cause the defect.

2. The Product Contained a Defect (CACI 1200–1206)

A plaintiff can prove a defect under three theories:

A. Manufacturing Defect (CACI 1202)

The product was not made as intended or deviated from the manufacturer’s specifications.
Example: A tire improperly cured during production that explodes (Soule v. GM Corp.).

B. Design Defect (CACI 1203 & 1204)

California uses two tests:

Risk-Benefit Test (CACI 1204)

A product is defective if the risks of the design outweigh the benefits.
Once the plaintiff shows the design contributed to injury, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove otherwise.

Consumer Expectations Test (CACI 1203)

A product is defective if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect.
This test applies where everyday users can form reasonable safety expectations (e.g., household appliances, vehicles, tools).

Courts have repeatedly upheld both tests, depending on product type. (Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.; Soule)

C. Failure to Warn / Inadequate Warnings (CACI 1205 & 1206)

A product is defective if:

• It lacked necessary warnings; or
  
• The warnings were inadequate or hidden; and
  
• The risk was known or knowable based on existing scientific knowledge (Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.)
  

Manufacturers must warn about foreseeable risks, even if the product is perfectly designed and built.

3. The Defect Existed When the Product Left the Manufacturer's Possession

The plaintiff must show the defect was not caused by later misuse, modification, or improper maintenance.

4. The Defect Was a Substantial Factor in Causing Injury

The defect must meaningfully contribute to the harm, even if other causes existed.

California’s "substantial factor" standard is broad and favors consumer safety.

California allows product liability claims under:

• Strict liability
  
• Negligence
  
• Breach of express or implied warranty
  

Strict liability focuses on the product, not the manufacturer’s conduct.
Negligence focuses on how the manufacturer acted (failure to test, failure to inspect, reckless quality control, etc.).

Both theories can be pursued in the same case.

BLG represents clients injured by:

• Vehicle defects (airbags, seatbelts, brakes, steering, batteries)
  
• Electric vehicle & lithium-ion battery fires
  
• Defective tires and blowouts
  
• Medical devices and implants
  
• Dangerous drugs
  
• Children’s products & toys
  
• Power tools and machinery
  
• Industrial equipment
  
• Household electronics and appliances
  
• Chemical exposure and toxic substances
  
• Defective construction equipment
  
• Poorly designed consumer goods
  
• Failure of safety equipment
  

Whether the product is large (like an industrial forklift) or small (like a faulty battery), manufacturers can be held accountable.

• Automotive manufacturers (EVs, hybrids, diesel, gas)
  
• Heavy machinery and workplace equipment
  
• E-bikes and scooters
  
• Consumer electronics (phones, chargers, batteries)
  
• Medical devices and pharmaceuticals
  
• Cosmetics containing harmful chemicals
  
• Home improvement tools
  
• Recreational vehicles
  

If the product was purchased, leased, or used in California, California product liability laws apply.

Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978)

Established the dual-test approach (risk-benefit & consumer expectations) for design defects.

Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994)

Clarified when the consumer expectations test applies and confirmed strict liability for defective vehicle components.

Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (1991)

Established the standard for failure-to-warn cases and the requirement that the risk be knowable.

Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963)

The landmark case creating strict product liability in California.

These cases remain foundational today.

Generally:

• Two years from the date of injury
  
• Delayed discovery rule applies if the defect was not known or knowable
  
• Six months government claim deadline if the defendant is a public entity
  
• Wrongful death claims follow the wrongful death statute (two years)
  

Timely action is critical, especially because defective product evidence must be preserved immediately.

We conduct sophisticated investigations involving:

• Product testing
  
• Engineering and mechanical failure analysis
  
• Expert testimony (engineers, metallurgists, battery experts, biomechanics)
  
• Black box/E-data retrieval
  
• Fire cause & origin analysis
  
• Industrial design review
  
• Human factors analysis
  
• Prior recall history
  
• Manufacturer quality-control practices
  
• Regulatory and compliance evaluations
  

We often uncover:

• Prior consumer complaints
  
• Hidden recalls
  
• Internal testing documents
  
• Failed quality-control measures
  
• Known hazards ignored by manufacturers
  

Product liability cases require aggressive litigation, expert coordination, and deep technical knowledge — BLG excels at all three.