Attorney Michael Rehm - (916) 233-7346
California established strict product liability in 1963. In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, the California Supreme Court held that a manufacturer is strictly liable when a product causes injury while being used in a reasonably foreseeable way. The key word is "strictly" — you do not have to prove the manufacturer was careless. The defect is the issue, not the defendant's conduct.
That matters because proving negligence is hard. Proving a product was defective and that the defect caused your injury is a different legal standard — one California courts have applied for more than sixty years.
What Strict Product Liability Means in California
California holds manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers strictly liable when a defective product causes injury. Strict liability means the defendant's care — or lack of it — is not the question. The question is whether the product was defective and whether that defect caused the harm.
The policy reasoning goes back to Greenman: the companies that profit from placing products into commerce are better positioned than individual consumers to anticipate hazards, insure against risks, and absorb the cost of injuries. That burden does not belong to the injured consumer.
The Three Types of Product Defect
California recognizes three theories under which a product can be legally defective.
Manufacturing Defect
A manufacturing defect exists when a specific unit deviated from the manufacturer's own design specifications — it came off the line wrong. The design was fine; that particular product was not. The burden is on the plaintiff to show the product deviated from the manufacturer's design or from apparently identical units. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413 (CACI 1201).
Design Defect
A design defect exists when the product was made exactly as intended, but the design itself is the problem. California applies two tests, and both can be presented in the same case.
Consumer expectation test: A product is defective in design if it failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in a reasonably foreseeable way. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413 (CACI 1203).
Risk-benefit test: A product is defective if the risks inherent in its design outweigh the benefits of that design. The factors a jury considers include: the gravity of the danger posed by the design; the likelihood that the danger would cause injury; whether a safer alternative design was mechanically feasible; the cost of that alternative; and the adverse consequences to the product and consumers that would result from a design change. Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 21; Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413 (CACI 1204).
Under the risk-benefit test, once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove its design was justified. The manufacturer must defend its choices, not the other way around.
Failure to Warn
A product can be flawlessly manufactured and properly designed and still be defective if the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings about known or knowable risks. The question is whether the risk was known or knowable given the state of scientific understanding at the time — not whether the manufacturer was careless in failing to warn. Strict liability for failure to warn does not require proof that the defendant's conduct fell below a reasonable standard of care (CACI 1205).
Who Can Be Held Liable
California's strict liability doctrine reaches every business in the distribution chain: the manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, and retailer. Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256. If you were injured by a defective product, liability is not limited to the company that made it. The store that sold it, the distributor that shipped it, and the manufacturer that designed it can all be held responsible.
Product liability disclaimers are unenforceable under California law. A manufacturer cannot contract away its responsibility to consumers — and courts will not enforce an agreement that purports to do so. Westlye v. Look Sports, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1715.
Liability among defendants in the distribution chain is joint and several. Any defendant causally connected to the defect is responsible for all damages attributable to that defect. The defendants can seek apportionment among themselves; that burden does not fall on you.
What You Can Recover
Economic damages include medical costs already incurred, future medical and rehabilitation expenses, lost earnings, and lost earning capacity.
Noneconomic damages include pain, suffering, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life. There is no statutory cap on noneconomic damages in product liability cases in California.
Punitive damages are available where a manufacturer's conduct constitutes malice, oppression, or fraud under California Civil Code § 3294. Clear and convincing evidence of that level of conduct is required. Product liability cases involving knowing concealment of safety defects — internal studies buried, known risks never disclosed — are the setting where punitive damages are most viable.
If the defective product was manufactured or owned by a government entity, punitive damages are not available against that entity. Government Code § 818.
Statute of limitations: California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 gives you two years from the date of injury — or from the date you discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury and its connection to the defective product. Do not assume the clock starts at the date of purchase or use; it starts when you knew or should have known.
Product Liability Cases in Sacramento
Product liability cases filed in Sacramento County are heard at the Gordon D. Schaber Courthouse, 720 Ninth Street, Sacramento. When the damages are substantial and the legal and factual issues are complex — multiple defendants, competing retained experts, extensive document discovery — cases may be designated complex civil litigation under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.400. Complex designation assigns the case to a single judge for its entire life, which typically produces a longer but more structured process.
UC Davis Medical Center is Sacramento's Level I Trauma Center and the primary facility for serious product-related injuries — industrial equipment failures, vehicle defects, power tool injuries, and similar catastrophic harm. The medical records from UC Davis, combined with the testimony of its trauma surgeons, frequently become the core of a damages case.
Sacramento generates product liability cases across several concentrated industries:
Agricultural and industrial equipment: The Central Valley is among the largest agricultural equipment markets in the United States. Machinery defects — missing safety guards, failed hydraulic systems, rollover protection failures, and inadequate warnings on industrial equipment — are a consistent source of serious injury in Sacramento and the surrounding region.
Automotive: Sacramento sits at the junction of Interstate 5, US-50, and Interstate 80. Vehicle defect cases — defective tires, seatbelt failures, airbag malfunctions — are among the most common product liability claims.
Consumer products and recalled items: The Consumer Product Safety Commission maintains a public database of product recalls. If a product that injured you has been recalled, that recall is powerful evidence of a known defect — and can significantly affect how a case is valued and resolved.
Amazon marketplace products: Amazon operates major fulfillment infrastructure in the Sacramento region, including facilities near Mather. In Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 431, the California Court of Appeal held that Amazon is strictly liable as a distributor for defective products sold by third-party sellers on its platform. If a product purchased through Amazon injured you, the seller's location or identity does not necessarily shield Amazon from responsibility. The Court did limit its holding to the facts of the case, but it does show that Amazon can be found strictly liable for the products they sell, or the products they facilitate for sale.
Filing a Product Liability Case in Sacramento County
Product liability cases are filed at the Gordon D. Schaber Courthouse. The standard statute of limitations is two years under CCP § 335.1.
If a government entity is involved — a city vehicle, a public facility, equipment owned by a public agency — a government claim must be filed within six months of the date of injury under Government Code § 911.2. Miss that deadline and the claim is barred regardless of how strong the underlying case is.
Product liability cases involving serious injury frequently require retained experts — engineers, biomechanical specialists, medical professionals — and extensive discovery from manufacturers and distributors who control the relevant documents. Understanding that timeline early matters.
Attorney Michael Rehm handles product liability cases throughout Sacramento County on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (916) 233-7346 for a free consultation — office visits, home visits, and hospital visits available.