Strict Liability Failure to Warn

1. The defendant manufactured/distributed/sold the product (was in the “chain of distribution”);

2. That the product had potential risks that were known or knowable in light of the scientific and medical knowledge that was generally accepted in the scientific community at the time of the manufacture/distribution/sale;

3. That the potential risks presented a substantial danger when the product is used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way;

4. That ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential risks;

5. That defendant failed to adequately warn of the potential risks;

6. That plaintiff was harmed while using the product as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable way; and

7. That lack of sufficient instructions or warnings was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.

“[A] defendant involved in the marketing/distribution process has been held strictly liable if three factors are present:

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!