A defective Peloton seat post that snaps mid-ride, a lithium battery that ignites inside a child’s tablet, a household ladder that buckles at rung four — California law gives the injured person a path to recovery that does not require proving the manufacturer was careless. Borna Houman Law represents people across Los Angeles County who were hurt by defective products, from Downtown LA to Long Beach to the San Fernando Valley. A product liability lawyer in Los Angeles uses California’s strict liability doctrine to hold manufacturers, distributors, and retailers financially responsible without the proof burden of a standard negligence case.
Key Takeaway: California allows you to recover from any party in the chain of distribution (manufacturer, distributor, retailer, and in many cases Amazon) under strict liability for a defective product. You do not have to prove the company was negligent. You must show the product had a design, manufacturing, or warning defect that caused your injury. The statute of limitations is two years from the date of injury under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1.
What Counts as a Defective Product Under California Law?
California recognizes three distinct types of product defects, and each one has its own legal test. A product is defective if it has any one of them. The injured person does not have to allege all three.
The framework comes from Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (1978), and has been refined for over four decades. In our experience representing LA injury victims, the defect type often controls the value of the case because it dictates what evidence the defense must produce.
| Defect Type | Legal Test | Typical Example |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturing defect | The product differs from the manufacturer’s intended design (Barker v. Lull). | A car airbag with a cracked inflator from the same production run that injured drivers nationwide. |
| Design defect | Consumer expectations test OR risk-utility test (Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548). | An SUV with a roof-crush rating so weak it predictably collapses in a rollover. |
| Failure-to-warn defect | The maker knew or should have known of a non-obvious risk and failed to provide an adequate warning. | A prescription drug sold without disclosing a documented stroke risk. |
Manufacturing defects are the easiest to prove because the plaintiff only has to show the unit was different from the rest of the run. Design defects are the most contested because they attack the product line itself, which means the manufacturer fights hard. Failure-to-warn cases turn on what the company knew and when it knew it, which is why early evidence preservation matters.
Who Can Be Sued in a Product Liability Case in California?
Every party in the chain of distribution can be held jointly and severally liable for a defective product injury under California law. This is broader than most plaintiffs realize. The doctrine comes from Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 61 Cal.2d 256 (1964), and extends well beyond the manufacturer.
The chain typically includes the manufacturer, any component-part maker, the distributor or wholesaler, and the retailer who sold the product. Each can be named as a defendant. Each can be required to indemnify the others under California Civil Code § 1431.2 apportionment rules, but for the injured person, that fight between defendants is largely irrelevant to recovery.
Amazon and Online Marketplace Liability
The 2020 decision in Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC, 53 Cal.App.5th 431, expanded liability for products bought through online marketplaces. The Court of Appeal held that Amazon is a “link in the vertical chain of distribution” for products sold through its Fulfilled-by-Amazon program and can be held strictly liable, even when the third-party seller is the nominal merchant. Loomis v. Amazon.com LLC, 63 Cal.App.5th 466 (2021), extended the same logic to other Amazon transactions.
The most common mistake we see is people assuming that buying from a small third-party seller on Amazon means they have no real defendant. They have Amazon. They often also have the foreign-seller’s insurer through Amazon’s A-to-z Guarantee program.
How Does California’s Strict Liability Standard Actually Work?
California adopted strict products liability in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57 (1963). Under strict liability, the injured person does not have to prove the manufacturer was careless. The plaintiff must prove three elements: the product had a defect, the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control, and the defect caused the injury when the product was used in a reasonably foreseeable way.
This is a structurally different and easier path than ordinary negligence. In a negligence case, the defense can argue the manufacturer used reasonable care given the state of the industry. In a strict liability case, that defense is largely off the table for manufacturing-defect claims and limited under Soule for design-defect claims.
The Consumer Expectations Test vs. The Risk-Utility Test
For design defects, California applies one of two tests depending on the product. The consumer expectations test asks whether the product performed less safely than an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. The risk-utility test asks whether the risks of the design outweigh its benefits.
Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (1994), held that the consumer expectations test applies only when the product’s failure mode is within everyday experience. Complex engineering questions go to the risk-utility test, which requires expert testimony on alternative feasible designs. The choice between tests can swing a verdict by millions of dollars, which is why retaining the right expert at the right phase is critical.
What Is the Statute of Limitations for a Product Liability Case in California?
California’s statute of limitations for product liability personal injury claims is two years from the date of injury under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. Wrongful death claims also follow the two-year limit under CCP § 335.1, measured from the date of death. Missing this deadline ends the case.
Two important exceptions apply. The delayed discovery rule, codified in part at CCP § 340.8 for toxic exposure cases, can extend the clock when the injury was not reasonably discoverable until later, a common issue with drug and medical-device injuries that surface years after exposure. Claims against government entities require a presentation of the claim within six months under Government Code § 911.2, with strict notice rules.
Acting quickly preserves the case in another way: evidence. Defective units get destroyed, design specifications get revised, and warning labels get changed. The faster a preservation-of-evidence letter goes out, the stronger the case.
What Damages Can You Recover After a Defective Product Injury?
California allows recovery of economic damages, non-economic damages, and in qualifying cases punitive damages in a product liability lawsuit. There is no statutory cap on pain and suffering in a standard product liability personal injury case. Medical malpractice cases are capped by MICRA; ordinary product liability cases are not.
Economic damages include past and future medical expenses, lost wages, future earning-capacity loss, and the cost of medical equipment or home modification. For a severely injured client, a life care plan prepared by a certified life care planner often becomes the central evidence on future medical costs. Non-economic damages cover pain, suffering, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Punitive damages are available under Civil Code § 3294 when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the manufacturer acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. In product liability, that usually means evidence the company knew of the defect and concealed it. Internal emails, prior incident reports, and suppressed test results are the patterns that build a punitive claim. Romo v. Ford Motor Co., 113 Cal.App.4th 738 (2003), shows what that evidence pattern looks like.
How Does a Los Angeles Product Liability Attorney Build the Case?
The first thirty days control the trajectory of a product liability case. The defective unit has to be preserved in its post-incident condition. Photographs, packaging, instruction manuals, and any model or serial numbers have to be documented. Witnesses have to be located before they move or forget. Treating providers have to be coordinated under a single billing structure that maps to the eventual damages model.
A spoliation-of-evidence letter goes out to the manufacturer, the retailer, and any other identifiable parties in the chain. That letter triggers a legal duty to preserve all related records. If those records are later destroyed, the court can impose evidentiary sanctions including an adverse-inference jury instruction.
For severe injury cases, the firm coordinates with a biomechanical engineer, a product-failure analyst, and a life care planner from the outset. Bringing experts in early lets the legal theory and the damages model develop together. Many catastrophic product cases involve the same injuries we handle in our Los Angeles catastrophic injury practice, including burn injuries from defective batteries or appliances, spinal injuries from collapsing equipment, and traumatic brain injuries from helmet or restraint failures.
Frequently Asked Questions About Product Liability Cases in Los Angeles
Do I need to prove the manufacturer was negligent to win a product liability case in California?
No. California strict liability allows recovery without proving negligence. The plaintiff must show the product had a design, manufacturing, or warning defect, that the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control, and that the defect caused the injury. Greenman v. Yuba Power established this rule in 1963.
Can I sue Amazon for a defective product I bought from a third-party seller?
In most cases, yes. Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC (2020) and Loomis v. Amazon.com LLC (2021) hold that Amazon is part of the vertical chain of distribution for products sold through its platform and can be held strictly liable. The third-party seller is also a defendant when identifiable.
How long do I have to file a product liability lawsuit in California?
Two years from the date of injury under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. Wrongful death claims have a two-year deadline from the date of death. The delayed discovery rule may extend the deadline when the injury could not reasonably have been discovered earlier, which is common for prescription drug and medical device cases.
What evidence do I need to keep after a defective product injury?
The product itself in its post-incident condition is the single most important item. Save the packaging, instruction manual, receipt, and any photographs of the scene. Do not return the product to the seller, the manufacturer, or an insurance adjuster. Once it is gone, the case becomes substantially harder to prove.
Are there caps on damages in a California product liability case?
There is no statutory cap on pain and suffering in a standard product liability personal injury case. Medical malpractice cases follow MICRA caps under AB 35, but ordinary product liability cases do not. Punitive damages are governed by federal due process limits articulated in State Farm v. Campbell (2003), typically a single-digit ratio to compensatory damages.
Can I bring a product liability claim if I was using the product in a way the manufacturer did not intend?
Possibly. The test is reasonable foreseeability, not strict intended use. If the use was reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer, even if not the original intended purpose, the claim can proceed. Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp., 8 Cal.3d 121 (1972), and later cases address foreseeable misuse.
Talk to a Los Angeles Product Liability Lawyer
If a defective product injured you or a family member anywhere in Los Angeles County, Borna Houman Law evaluates the case at no cost and works on a contingency fee. There is no charge unless we recover money. The two-year statute of limitations runs from the date of injury, and evidence does not wait, so early action matters. Call (888) 42-BORNA for a free consultation. You can also visit our Los Angeles burn injury practice for defective-battery and appliance-fire cases, our spinal cord injury page for collapsing-equipment cases, or our construction accident lawyer page for defective tools and equipment claims.
This article is informational only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Borna Houman Law. Every product liability case turns on its specific facts. For advice on your situation, consult a licensed California attorney. Authoritative sources cited: Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 and the Judicial Council of California.