Issue: Under federal law as applied in California, when does an injury caused by a defect in manufacture or design present a compensable tort?
| Area of Law: | Personal Injury & Negligence |
| Keywords: | Tort liability; Defect in manufacture or design; Compensable tort |
| Jurisdiction: | California, Federal |
| Cited Cases: | 810 P.2d 549; 926 F. Supp. 624; 20 Cal. 3d 413; 143 Cal. Rptr. 225; 8 Cal. 4th 548; 882 P.2d 298; 281 Cal. Rptr. 528; 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 607; 53 Cal. 3d 987 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 01/01/2001 |
Under California law, a manufacturer is liable in tort if a defect in the manufacture or design of a product causes injury while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable way. Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 548, 882 P.2d 298, 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 607, 612 (citations omitted). A product such as a sulfur-dust pesticide is defective if its design embodies "’excessive preventable danger’"; that is, the risks of danger inherent in the design outweigh the benefits of the design. Id., 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 617 (quoting Barker v. Lull Eng’g Co. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 413, 430, 573 P.2d 443, 143 Cal. Rptr. 225).
The risk‑benefit analysis involves technical issues of feasibility, cost and practicality. Id. See also BAJI 9.00.5 ("[I]n determining whether the benefits of the design outweigh such risks you may consider, among other things, the gravity of the danger posed by the design, the likelihood that such danger would cause damage, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternate design at the time of manufacture, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the product and the consumer that would result from an alternate design.")
Just as in Burt v. Fumigation Serv. & Supply, Inc. (W.D. Mich. 1996), 926 F. Supp. 624, absent a suggestion that any […]