34Torts

Products Liability

Products liability imposes liability on manufacturers and sellers for injuries caused by defective products. This week covers the three theories of products liability (strict liability, negligence, warranty), the three types of defects (manufacturing, design, warning), and the major defenses.

Prev Next

Learning Objectives

Apply strict products liability: defective product in an unreasonably dangerous condition reaches consumer without substantial alteration
Distinguish manufacturing defects (departure from intended design) from design defects (entire product line is dangerous)
Apply the two tests for design defects: consumer expectations test and risk-utility (Barker) test
Analyze failure to warn claims: duty to warn of foreseeable risks not obvious to the ordinary consumer
Identify defendants in the chain of distribution who may be strictly liable

Key Rules

Strict products liability (Restatement 2d section 402A): Seller of a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user is liable for physical harm caused, regardless of privity or care exercised.
Manufacturing defect: The specific unit departs from its intended design — a quality control failure. Strict liability because the product failed to conform to the manufacturer's own standards.
Design defect tests: (1) Consumer expectations — product is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect; (2) Risk-utility (Wade/Barker) — risks of the design outweigh its utility, considering alternative designs.
Failure to warn (marketing defect): Manufacturer has a duty to provide adequate warnings of foreseeable risks of harm that are not obvious to the ordinary user. The warning must be prominent, clear, and comprehensive.
Chain of distribution: ALL commercial sellers in the chain (manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer) are strictly liable. Casual sellers and service providers are NOT strictly liable.

Products Liability

Three Theories of Recovery

| Theory | What Plaintiff Proves | Who Is Liable | |--------|---------------------|---------------| | Strict liability | Defect + causation + damages | All in chain of distribution | | Negligence | Duty + breach + causation + damages | Anyone whose negligence caused defect | | Warranty | Breach of express/implied warranty | Seller (privity may be required) |

Three Types of Defects

Manufacturing Defect

- The specific unit departs from its intended design - It's a quality-control failure — one bad unit in a good batch - Liability is essentially automatic: the product failed the manufacturer's OWN standard

Design Defect

- The ENTIRE product line is allegedly defective — the design itself is the problem - Two tests: - Consumer expectations: More dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect - Risk-utility: Risks outweigh benefits when a feasible safer alternative design exists

Warning/Marketing Defect

- The product itself is fine, but inadequate warnings make it unreasonably dangerous - Duty: Warn of foreseeable risks not obvious to ordinary users - Learned intermediary doctrine: For prescription drugs, warning to the doctor suffices

Baby Bar Connection

Products liability is tested on the Baby Bar when a consumer is injured by a product. Analyze ALL theories (strict liability AND negligence) and identify the type of defect (manufacturing, design, or warning). Consider multiple defendants in the chain of distribution.

Cases to Know

Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963) — established strict products liability in California; no privity required
Barker v. Lull Engineering (1978) — California adopts both consumer expectations AND risk-utility tests for design defects

California Codes — Official Authority

The statutes SofAI ties to this topic. Use them as your IRAC rule block, then verify the current text on the official leginfo link.

Cal. Civ. Code §3294 — Punitive (exemplary) damagesleginfo
In a non-contract case, a plaintiff may recover punitive damages if the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Exam hook: Punitive damages need a tort plus §3294 aggravating conduct — never award them for a pure breach of contract.

Explore all California Codes

Baby Bar Relevance

Products liability appears on the Baby Bar when consumers are injured by products. The three theories (strict, negligence, warranty) and three defect types (manufacturing, design, warning) provide a systematic analytical framework.

Week 33 Back to Dashboard Week 35

Learning Objectives

Apply strict products liability: defective product in an unreasonably dangerous condition reaches consumer without substantial alteration

Distinguish manufacturing defects (departure from intended design) from design defects (entire product line is dangerous)

Apply the two tests for design defects: consumer expectations test and risk-utility (Barker) test

Analyze failure to warn claims: duty to warn of foreseeable risks not obvious to the ordinary consumer

Identify defendants in the chain of distribution who may be strictly liable

Key Rules

Strict products liability (Restatement 2d section 402A): Seller of a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user is liable for physical harm caused, regardless of privity or care exercised.

Manufacturing defect: The specific unit departs from its intended design — a quality control failure. Strict liability because the product failed to conform to the manufacturer's own standards.

Design defect tests: (1) Consumer expectations — product is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect; (2) Risk-utility (Wade/Barker) — risks of the design outweigh its utility, considering alternative designs.

Failure to warn (marketing defect): Manufacturer has a duty to provide adequate warnings of foreseeable risks of harm that are not obvious to the ordinary user. The warning must be prominent, clear, and comprehensive.

Chain of distribution: ALL commercial sellers in the chain (manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer) are strictly liable. Casual sellers and service providers are NOT strictly liable.

Three Theories of Recovery

California Codes — Official Authority

The statutes SofAI ties to this topic. Use them as your IRAC rule block, then verify the current text on the official leginfo link.

Cal. Civ. Code §3294 — Punitive (exemplary) damagesleginfo

In a non-contract case, a plaintiff may recover punitive damages if the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Exam hook: Punitive damages need a tort plus §3294 aggravating conduct — never award them for a pure breach of contract.

Explore all California Codes