Attorney Advertising
California Defective Product Attorneys
Los Angeles Product Liability Lawyer
When a product causes a serious injury, the investigation reaches past the incident itself. The design, the manufacturing history, the warnings, the distribution chain and the physical condition of the product can all matter. Burg & Brock investigate how it failed, who may be responsible, and how the defect contributed to the injury.
Free consultation. No attorney’s fee unless we obtain a recovery for you.
Cameron Yadidi Brock
- Role
- Founding Attorney
- Bar
- California #183112
- Since
- Practicing 1996
- 1996Practicing since
- Sherman OaksLos Angeles County office
- No FeeUnless there is a recovery
- FreeConfidential case review
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Reviewed by Cameron Yadidi BrockFounding Attorney, Law Offices of Burg & Brock · California State Bar #183112 · Admitted 1996
The Short Answer
Do I Have a Product Liability Claim?
Possibly, if a defect caused the injury while the product was used in a way its maker could reasonably expect.
A product that breaks is not automatically defective, and injury alone does not establish a claim. California asks which defect theory the evidence fits, which business answers for it, and whether the defect caused the harm.
Strict Liability
What Is Strict Product Liability in California?
A rule that can let an injured person pursue businesses in a product’s commercial chain without proving carelessness. It is not a rule that everyone hurt by a product wins.
California courts put the limit in their own words: strict liability has never been, and is not now, absolute liability, and a manufacturer does not become the insurer of the safety of the product’s user.
What it can remove
- Proving the company was careless
- Tracing which person inside it erred
- Any contract between you and the maker
What it never removes
- Proof of a defect
- Proof this defendant made, distributed or sold it
- Proof the defect caused the harm
- Proof of the injury and what it cost
SourcesCACI 2026, No. 1200 · Sanchez v. Hitachi Koki (2013) · Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963)
Three Theories
Three Ways a Product May Be Defective
Manufacturing, design and warning defects are separate theories with separate elements. A case can involve more than one.
Manufacturing defect
The design may be fine. This particular unit was not made as intended.
Design defect
The challenge is to the design itself, so every unit shares it. California measures this two ways.
Failure to warn
A separate claim about what the product told you, not how it was built or drawn.
SourcesAnderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1991) · CACI 2026, Nos. 1201, 1203, 1204, 1205
Manufacturing
What Is a Manufacturing Defect?
One unit went wrong. The question is how this item differs from what the manufacturer intended, or from the units made alongside it.
Improper assembly, contamination, a missing component, a failed weld. Proving it means comparing the item against the specification and against properly made units, which is why the physical product matters.
A malfunction is not the same as a defect
California allows a defect to be shown by circumstantial evidence, and also holds that a defect is not inferred from the accident alone.
Design
What Is a Design Defect, and How Is It Measured?
Here the challenge is to the design every unit shares. California measures it two ways, and the court decides which applies.
Consumer expectations
- What it asks
- Did the product perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect, used in an intended or foreseeable way?
- Where it stops
- Where the circumstances of the failure do not let an ordinary user form a minimum safety expectation.
Risk-benefit
- What it asks
- After a required initial showing, do the benefits of the design outweigh its dangers?
- Who carries what
- The injured person produces evidence. The company then carries a burden of proof.
Which test applies is not a box a visitor ticks. The court decides it on the evidence, and neither is a universal answer for a category of product.
Consumer Expectations
What Is the Consumer-Expectations Test?
Whether the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would reasonably expect, used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. The measure is objective: testimony that the injured person did not expect to be hurt does not make the test apply.
The limit is where most pages go wrong. It is not that complicated products go to the other test. California’s Supreme Court was asked to draw that line and refused, holding that because the variety of potential product injuries is infinite, the line cannot be drawn that clearly. It asks instead whether the circumstances of the failure permit an inference that the design performed below the minimum safety assumptions ordinary consumers legitimately hold.
So a complex product can still be a consumer-expectations case where ordinary experience speaks to the way it failed, and a simple one can fall outside the test where the design question turns on engineering trade-offs. The same court said ordinary consumers do have legitimate expectations about minimum safety. Its practical marker: where both sides assume expert engineering testimony is needed, this is usually not the test.
SourcesSoule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 566-570 · Pannu v. Land Rover North America (2011) · Trejo v. Johnson & Johnson (2017) · CACI 2026, No. 1203
Risk-Benefit
What Is California’s Risk-Benefit Test?
A weighing of a design’s benefits against its dangers. It begins with a showing the injured person has to make first.
Step 1
The injured person produces evidenceThat this company made, distributed or sold it; that the injury happened while it was used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way; and that the design was a substantial factor in the harm.
Step 2
The burden shiftsOnly then, and only on this test, does the company take on the burden of proving its design is not defective.
Then
The weighingGravity of the danger, likelihood it would occur, feasibility and cost of a safer alternative, and that alternative’s disadvantages.
The two burdens differ in kind, and flattening them is the usual error: the injured person carries a burden of producing evidence, the company a burden of proof. It is not the rule that an injured person need only show injury and leave the rest to the manufacturer. Risk-benefit weighing is also no part of the consumer-expectations test and is no defense to it.
SourcesBarker v. Lull Engineering (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 431-432 · Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp. (2018) · Perez v. VAS S.p.A. (2010) · CACI 2026, No. 1204
Warnings
When Can Inadequate Warnings Create Product Liability?
A product with no manufacturing flaw and a sound design can still be defective because of what it failed to tell you.
Potential risks, side effects or hazards in the product.
Through the scientific and technical knowledge available then.
An ordinary consumer would not have recognized the risk.
The failure to warn contributed substantially to the harm.
Two overstatements to avoid: a manufacturer is not required to warn about every conceivable danger, and the presence of a warning does not end a claim, because whether it was adequate is the question.
Two Theories
Is Product Liability the Same as Negligence?
No. They often run side by side in one case, ask different questions, and some evidence is admissible on one and not the other.
Strict liability
- The question
- Was there a qualifying defect, and did it cause the harm?
- What it does not require
- Proof of carelessness. These claims need not be pleaded in classic negligence elements at all.
Negligence
- The question
- Did the company’s own conduct fall below reasonable care?
- Where it can reach
- Design, manufacturing, testing, inspection, warnings and post-sale conduct, where the facts support it.
What Must Be Established
What Has to Be Proven in a Product Case?
The exact elements differ for manufacturing, design, warning and negligence claims. The sequence does not.
- 01Identify the product and the defendant
- 02Preserve what is left of it
- 03Identify the defect theory
- 04Establish the use and circumstances
Intended or reasonably foreseeable.
- 05Connect the defect to the incident
A substantial factor, not a coincidence.
- 06Establish injury and document damages
The Distribution Chain
Who Can Be Held Responsible for a Defective Product?
Strict liability in California can reach past the factory. It does not reach everyone who ever touched the product.
Builds it
ManufacturerDesign sits here. An engineer who only designs a product and does not help bring it to market is not subject to strict products liability.
Supplies a part
Component manufacturerGenerally not answerable for the finished product unless the component itself was defective and caused harm, or its maker substantially participated in integrating it.
Moves it
DistributorExposure follows the role actually played, not the label on the invoice.
Sells it
Retailer or sellerA retailer in the business of distributing goods to the public can be strictly liable alongside the manufacturer.
Protected
Purchaser, user or bystanderNot limited to the buyer. A bystander hurt by a foreseeable defect is covered too.
From the activity and from the sale of the product.
A necessary factor in bringing the product to the consumer market.
Over the manufacturing or distribution process.
A defendant is not strictly liable merely because it is technically a link in the chain, and the chain has an end. California’s Supreme Court held a landlord and a hotel are not in the chain of distribution of the fixtures in their buildings, comparing it to calling a restaurant a retailer of toilets because it has restrooms.
Repair shops, installers and medical providers
Where buying the product is the essence of the transaction, strict liability reaches even a mere conduit. Where the service predominates and the product sale is incidental, it ordinarily does not: a contractor hired to install seat belts was a provider of services, and a hospital was not strictly liable for a device supplied during treatment. Negligence claims are unaffected, the half most pages omit, and the analysis is fact-sensitive enough that a subcontractor who supplied and installed materials has been held strictly liable.
Bought it used, or online
Second-hand purchase does not by itself end a claim. California courts have generally declined to apply strict product liability to a commercial dealer in used goods, who sits outside the original chain and makes no representation about quality simply by offering an item for sale. The limits are real: a seller that rebuilt the item can be tantamount to a manufacturer, representations about quality change the picture, negligence and warranty theories survive, and the original manufacturer, distributor and retailer are unaffected. Whether an online marketplace is inside the chain depends on what it actually did: who held the product, took payment, shipped it and controlled the listing.
SourcesVandermark (1964) · Arriaga (2008) · Petitpas (2017) · O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) · Romine (2014) · Peterson v. Superior Court (1995) · Hernandezcueva (2015) · Wilkinson v. Hicks (1981) · Bolger (2020) · CACI 1200, 1208
Misuse, Modification, Fault
What If the Company Says I Misused the Product?
Misuse is an affirmative defense. The company raises it and the company has to prove it.
California expects a manufacturer to foresee some degree of misuse and abuse and to guard against it. To defeat a claim outright the defense must clear three parts stacked together: the misuse or modification happened after the product left the company’s hands, it was so highly extraordinary that it was not reasonably foreseeable, and it was therefore the sole cause of the harm.
A complete defense
Not a complete defense
If someone modified the product
The same framework, with these questions first: who modified it and when, whether the manufacturer authorized or anticipated it, whether the modification caused this injury, whether the original design was defective anyway, and whether anyone else was negligent. Some modifications have been held so substantial and unforeseeable as to be superseding causes. Others were only one apparent cause among several.
If I was partly responsible
A share of responsibility reduces a recovery in proportion rather than ending the claim, and no honest page assigns a percentage from a description. One point surprises people: there is no comparative fault among businesses in the distribution chain of the same product. Each remains fully liable for the economic and noneconomic damages.
SourcesCACI 2026, Nos. 1207A, 1207B, 1245 · Campbell v. Southern Pacific (1978) · Torres v. Xomox (1996) · Bigler-Engler v. Breg (2017)
Regulations
Does Following Government Rules Defeat a Claim?
No. Compliance is evidence a jury may weigh. It is not an automatic defense, and it is not preemption.
The asymmetry is the point. Violating a safety regulation can raise a presumption of negligence; complying with one raises no presumption of anything, because a safety rule generally sets a floor rather than a ceiling. Congress wrote that into two federal schemes in nearly the same words: compliance with a federal motor vehicle safety standard does not exempt a person from liability at common law, and compliance with consumer product safety rules does not relieve anyone from liability at common law or under state law.
Industry and voluntary standards are a separate category. That evidence is neither automatically admissible nor automatically excluded, it must be relevant to an element, and it may not be offered simply to show a manufacturer was no worse than its competitors.
Preemption is also not a general defense. It is a federal doctrine, so a California regulation cannot preempt a California claim at all, and whether a federal statute displaces a state claim depends on the particular statute, regulation, claim and product. Two United States Supreme Court decisions about the same federal seat-belt standard came out opposite ways on different facts.
Sources49 U.S.C. 30103(e) · 15 U.S.C. 2074(a) · Geier (2000) · Williamson (2011) · Howard v. Omni Hotels (2012) · Kim v. Toyota (2018) · CACI 418, 1204
Recalls
Does a Product Have to Be Recalled Before I Can Bring a Claim?
No. Not one California product-liability instruction contains a recall element, and the absence of a recall proves nothing either.
What a recall can do
- Point an investigation at a known failure mode
- Identify the units, lots or model years involved
- Support a request for records and earlier reports
What a recall does not do
- Establish that this product caused this injury
- Substitute for proof of a defect theory
- Guarantee it can be used as evidence in every court
Where a recall or a later design change exists, whether and how it can be used as evidence depends on the legal theory, the court and the purpose it is offered for. California and federal courts treat evidence of later fixes differently, and product cases move to federal court often enough that no page should promise one rule. Federal law also makes the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s failure to act inadmissible, so a regulator’s silence cannot be used against an injured person. Recall information comes from the CPSC, NHTSA, the FDA or whichever agency regulates that product.
Sources15 U.S.C. 2074 · Evid. Code 1151 · Ault v. International Harvester (1974) · Fed. R. Evid. 407
Vehicles
What If a Defective Vehicle or Component Caused the Injury?
The same theories, with different engineering behind them.
None of those is a defect merely because it failed. A part can fail from wear, damage, maintenance, a repair or the forces of the collision. A vehicle manufacturer cannot escape a claim by tracing the fault to a part someone else supplied.
Crashworthiness and enhanced injury
Sometimes the claim is not that a defect caused the crash but that a restraint, seat, structure or fuel system made the injuries worse. California allows it with a specific causation requirement: if the force of the crash would have produced the same injuries regardless of the design, the defect is not a legal cause. That is a question for accident reconstruction and biomechanics, not a label for every serious collision.
Case Types
Fires, Household Products and Equipment at Work
Representative categories, not a catalog.
Battery and electrical fires
A thermal event may trace to cell design, a manufacturing flaw, the charger, the installation, a later repair, or something unrelated to the product. This page accuses no manufacturer and no category of product before the evidence is examined. The remains of the device, the charger and the packaging are often the most important evidence, and fire debris belongs with investigators rather than the injured person.
Defective equipment at work
Workers’ compensation is usually the exclusive remedy against an employer, and it does not reach the company that made the machine. A machine, tool, lift or safety device that failed can support a separate claim against a third-party manufacturer, distributor or seller. An employer is not automatically a product-liability defendant, and a compensation carrier commonly has an interest in the recovery.
Children’s products
A child’s injury does not by itself mean a product was defective. What gets examined is age-appropriate and foreseeable use, small parts, restraints, stability and the instructions supplied.
Outside the scope of this page
Medication and medical-device claims run on separate doctrines and need their own review. Food and beverage claims are analyzed separately as well.
Preservation
Do Not Throw Away the Product Before the Case Is Evaluated
The most useful thing an injured person can do, and the one most often undone by tidying up.
Where it is safe to do so, keep the product and everything that came with it: broken pieces, packaging, labels, the manual, the receipt, the charger, the battery, fasteners and attachments. Photograph and video all of it before anything moves, and note where each piece was found. Repairing, disassembling, discarding, returning it to the manufacturer or agreeing to destructive testing can each remove the evidence a case depends on.
Safety comes first
Do not personally handle a burned or swollen battery, energized electrical equipment, chemicals, contaminated products or sharp broken parts. Leave those to the fire department, a qualified professional or an investigator. Nothing here asks anyone to ignore a recall instruction, a safety order, a government requirement or medical advice. If a recall directs you to return an item, ask a lawyer first how it can be documented before it goes.
Identifying the exact product
A defendant has to be connected to the specific item that caused the injury, so brand, model, serial number, lot code, date of manufacture, receipt, packaging, manual, warning labels, listing and repair history all matter. Do not assume a company’s identity from the way a product looks: brands license their names and retailers sell under house labels.
Evidence and Experts
The Four Layers of Evidence in a Product Case
Nothing here promises that any particular record exists or can be obtained.
The Product
- The item and its parts
- Serial, model, lot markings
- Packaging and labels
- Warnings and instructions
- Photographs and video
Purchase and History
- Receipt or order confirmation
- Seller information
- Maintenance records
- Repair and modification history
- Prior ownership where relevant
Defect and Liability
- Design documents where obtainable
- Manufacturing and testing records
- Quality control materials
- Recalls, complaints, bulletins
- Standards and regulations
Injury and Damages
- Medical records and imaging
- Photographs of the injuries
- Bills and out-of-pocket costs
- Lost wages and employment records
- Future treatment and function
One earlier complaint does not prove a defect, and no complaint at all does not disprove one.
Experts, and testing the product
Which of those a case needs depends on the failure, and very few cases need all of them. California courts have said plainly that not every design case needs an expert: where a safer alternative would be obvious to a layperson, expert proof of feasibility is unnecessary. Examination happens under a documented preservation protocol, with notice to the other side, non-destructive methods first, and destructive testing only where it is legally appropriate.
Causation
It Is Not Enough That a Product Broke
A malfunction starts an investigation. Liability generally requires a legally sufficient connection between the claimed defect and the injury.
01
DefectA manufacturing flaw, a design that fails the applicable test, or an inadequate warning.
02
CausationThat defect was a substantial factor in bringing about this injury.
03
InjuryDocumented harm, and what it costs now and later.
Competing explanations that get ruled in or out
- Normal wear or age
- Maintenance done or not done
- A repair or a replacement part
- A modification after sale
- How the product was being used
- Another component or product
- Another person’s negligence
- The environment it was used in
Damages and Case Value
What Can Be Claimed, and What a Case Is Worth
Burns, brain and spinal injuries, fractures, amputations, crush injuries, nerve and organ injuries. This page diagnoses nothing. A claim documents treatment received, treatment a physician says is still needed, and the effect on work and daily function.
Property damage may be claimed where it applies, including the product itself. Not every category applies to every case, and each has to be supported by evidence. Where someone did not survive, wrongful-death and survival claims follow their own rules. See wrongful death claims.
How much is a product liability case worth?
There is no calculator, no average and no figure attached to a category of product. What moves the answer is which defect theory the evidence supports, the strength of the causation proof, injury severity and the medical evidence, future care, effects on daily function, lost earning capacity, how many businesses are responsible, insurance and assets, whether the product was preserved, any comparative fault, and whether the case has to be litigated. That a product malfunctioned does not by itself establish the value of anything.
Warranty is a separate route
Express and implied warranty theories can run alongside a tort claim with their own elements, turning on the bargain between buyer and seller and on whether a warranty was excluded or modified. Those concepts have no counterpart in strict liability.
Our Process
How Burg & Brock Investigates a Product Case
A product case is not an auto claim with a different label. The physical evidence and the engineering come first, and the defense usually has engineers of its own.
Make, model, serial, lot, date of manufacture.
Before anything is repaired or returned.
Component suppliers, distributors, sellers.
Or several of them.
As the failure requires.
And rule the alternatives out.
Prepared on the assumption it will be defended.
Your Options
How This Compares to Handling It Yourself
Three routes are open to someone hurt after an injury from a product. They differ in who does the work, what gets investigated, and when it ends. Nothing below is a prediction.
Handling It Yourself
- You gather records, photographs and witness details
- You deal with the adjuster yourself
- You decide what to ask for, and when
- You track the filing deadline
- No attorney fee
Accepting an Early Offer
- An offer arrives before the claim is worked up
- Payment follows acceptance
- A signed release generally ends the claim
- Treatment may still be running, so the total cost is not yet known
- If the injury worsens later, the claim is usually closed
Bringing in a Lawyer
- The firm gathers and preserves the evidence
- The product itself is preserved, and the manufacturing chain identified
- Experts are retained where the cause is disputed
- Deadlines are tracked, including any shorter than the general one
- Contingency fee, case costs set out separately
Which route fits depends on facts often unsettled in the first weeks: whether the failure lies in the design, the build or the warning. A release signed before then is still a release.
Deadlines
How Long Do I Have to File a Product Liability Lawsuit in California?
California personal-injury lawsuits generally carry a two-year limitations period.
*That is not a universal deadline, and this page cannot calculate anyone’s date. When the clock started, whether a different period applies to a particular claim or defendant, and whether any exception applies all turn on the facts.
Personal injury
- General period
- Two years, subject to accrual and tolling.
- A minor’s claim
- Runs on separate provisions.
Property damage
- General period
- Damage to goods or personal property runs on a three-year provision, and damage to real property on its own three-year provision.
- Why it matters
- A product fire can put two clocks on one event.
The discovery rule can delay when a claim accrues and is narrower than people assume. The clock generally starts when someone suspects, or a reasonable person would suspect, both an injury and some wrongful cause, whichever comes first. Not knowing which company made the product does not by itself extend a deadline.
SourcesCode Civ. Proc. 335.1, 338(b), 338(c)(1), 352 · CACI 455 · Jolly v. Eli Lilly (1988) · Bernson v. Browning-Ferris (1994) · Fox v. Ethicon (2005)
The Attorney Responsible for This Page
Cameron Yadidi Brock
- California State Bar#183112 · license active
- AdmittedJune 1996
- PracticePersonal injury, plaintiff representation
- OfficeSherman Oaks, Los Angeles County
Cameron Yadidi Brock founded the Law Offices of Burg & Brock in Sherman Oaks and has practiced in California since 1996. The practice is plaintiff injury work: defective products, vehicle collisions, dangerous property conditions and serious injury. The State Bar certifies no specialty in product liability, and none is claimed.
Why Clients Come to Burg & Brock
- 01Personal injury is the practice
- 02Practicing in California since 1996
- 03Physical evidence preservation
- 04Engineering and expert case development
- 05Multiple-defendant investigation
- 06Serious-injury damages analysis
- 07Litigation capability
- 08Contingency representation
No attorney’s fee unless we obtain a recovery. Case costs are separate; the written fee agreement controls.
Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the product have to be recalled first?
No. No California instruction contains a recall element.
What if I used it differently than intended?
Foreseeable use still counts. Only unforeseeable misuse as the sole cause is a complete defense.
What if I bought it used?
The manufacturer’s exposure is unchanged. A used-goods dealer’s position is usually different.
What if I was injured at work?
Workers’ compensation usually covers the employer. A third-party product claim may still exist.
Should I return it to the manufacturer?
Ask a lawyer first. Returning it can hand over the evidence.
What if I already threw it away?
You may still have a claim. Photographs, records and witnesses carry weight.
How long do I have to file?
Often two years for injury, but not universally, and property damage runs differently.
How much does a product liability lawyer cost?
Contingency. No attorney’s fee unless we obtain a recovery. Case costs are separate.
Related
Other Ways We Help
Where a failed fixture or fitting caused a fall, see slip and fall, or reach us through our contact page.
Free Consultation
Talk to a Los Angeles Product Liability Lawyer
If a defective product may have caused a serious injury, Burg & Brock can evaluate the product, preserve the physical evidence, identify the companies in its distribution chain, investigate the applicable defect theory and document the full extent of the losses.
Confidential consultation. No attorney’s fee unless we obtain a recovery.
Free Case Evaluation
A few details are enough.
Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. Information you send is not confidential until we agree to represent you.
Law Offices of Burg & Brock, A Professional Law Corporation · Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles County, California
Attorney advertising. Cameron Yadidi Brock is licensed to practice law in California, State Bar #183112. This page is general information about California law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome; the result in any case depends on its own facts. No verdict, settlement or success-rate figure is claimed here, no outcome is predicted, and no certification in a legal specialty is claimed.
Attorney’s fees for qualifying matters are contingent on obtaining a recovery. Case costs are separate from attorney’s fees, and how they are handled is set out in the written fee agreement, which controls the terms of the representation.
Authority relied on includes the 2026 Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions Nos. 418, 455, 1200 to 1208, 1222, 1245 and the 3900 series; Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 338 and 352; Evidence Code section 1151; Civil Code sections 1431.2 and 1714(a); Commercial Code sections 2313 to 2316; Labor Code sections 3600, 3602 and 3852; 15 U.S.C. 2074; 49 U.S.C. 30103; and Federal Rule of Evidence 407. Statutes and case law change. Contact the office about a specific situation.
