Strict Liability Design Defect

“A design defect exists when the product is built in accordance with its intended specifications, but the design itself is inherently defective.” Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413, 439 (1978). California has two alternative sets of elements for establishing Strict Products Liability – Design Defect:

1. Defendant manufactured/distributed/sold the product;

2. That the product did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform when used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way;

3. Plaintiff was harmed; and

4. The product’s failure to perform safely was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.

(The “Consumer Expectation Test”)

OR

1. That the defendant manufactured/distributed/sold the product;

2. That the plaintiff was harmed ; and

3. That the product’s design was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff; and

4. the benefits of the product’s design do not outweigh the risks of the design.

This last factor requires considering, among others, the following elements (as relevant to the specific case):

The gravity of the potential harm resulting from the use of the product;

(b) The likelihood that this harm would occur;

(c) The feasibility of an alternative safer design at the time of manufacture;

(d) The cost of an alternative design; and

(e) The disadvantages of an alternative design.

(The “Risk Benefit Test”)

Subscribers To The California Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The California Litigation Guide To Access Everything!