---
title: Product Liability Standards
description: An overview of the legal standards and principles governing product liability claims in the United States.
keywords: [product liability, tort law, strict liability, negligence, consumer protection]
category: law
---

## Introduction to Product Liability

Product liability is a legal doctrine that imposes liability on manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of products for damages caused by defective or unreasonably dangerous products. The underlying rationale is to provide compensation to injured consumers and incentivize product safety. Product liability claims can be brought under theories of strict liability, negligence, or breach of warranty. The applicable standards and elements of proof vary depending on the specific cause of action.

## Strict Liability for Product Defects

The doctrine of strict product liability, first adopted in the landmark case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57 (1963), holds manufacturers strictly liable for injuries caused by defective products, regardless of the degree of care exercised. To establish a prima facie case of strict product liability, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous when it left the manufacturer's control; (2) the defect caused the plaintiff's injuries; and (3) the plaintiff was a foreseeable user of the product. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, who must demonstrate the existence of a defect by a preponderance of the evidence.

Courts have recognized three general categories of product defects that can give rise to strict liability: (1) manufacturing defects, where the product departs from its intended design; (2) design defects, where the product's design renders it unreasonably dangerous; and (3) failure to warn defects, where the product lacks adequate instructions or warnings. See, e.g., Barker v. Lull Eng'g Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (1978). Manufacturers can be held strictly liable even if they exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod. Liab. § 1.

## Negligence-Based Product Liability

In addition to strict liability, plaintiffs can also bring product liability claims based on negligence principles. To prevail on a negligence theory, the plaintiff must establish the traditional elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages. See, e.g., Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp., 8 Cal.3d 121 (1972). The plaintiff must show that the manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, or distribution of the product, and that this negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Negligence-based product liability claims often focus on the manufacturer's failure to adopt reasonable safety precautions or to warn of known dangers. For example, in Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453 (1944), the court held the manufacturer liable for negligence in failing to detect and correct a defect in a bottle that exploded and injured the plaintiff. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate the manufacturer's negligence by a preponderance of the evidence.

## Breach of Warranty Claims

Product liability can also arise from a breach of an express or implied warranty. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), manufacturers and sellers provide certain express and implied warranties, such as the implied warranty of merchantability and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. See U.C.C. §§ 2-314, 2-315. If a product fails to conform to these warranties, the plaintiff may recover for breach of warranty.

To prevail on a breach of warranty claim, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) a warranty existed; (2) the product did not conform to the warranty; (3) the plaintiff was injured by the nonconforming product; and (4) the plaintiff provided the defendant with timely notice of the breach. See, e.g., Hauter v. Zogarts, 14 Cal.3d 104 (1975). Unlike strict liability or negligence, breach of warranty claims do not require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's conduct was unreasonable or that the product was defective. The focus is on the product's failure to meet the applicable warranty standards.

## Defenses to Product Liability

Manufacturers and sellers have several potential defenses to product liability claims. One common defense is the "state of the art" defense, which provides that a manufacturer is not liable for failing to incorporate safety features that were not technologically feasible or economically practicable at the time the product was manufactured. See, e.g., Carlin v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 1104 (1996). Another defense is product misuse or alteration, where the plaintiff's own actions in using or modifying the product in an unforeseeable manner were the sole cause of the injury. See Daly v. Gen. Motors Corp., 20 Cal.3d 725 (1978).

Manufacturers may also assert the defense of comparative fault, arguing that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injury. In jurisdictions that have adopted comparative fault principles, the plaintiff's recovery may be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault. See, e.g., Daly, 20 Cal.3d 725. Additionally, the statute of limitations may bar claims brought too long after the product was purchased or the injury occurred.

## Remedies and Damages

Successful product liability plaintiffs may recover a variety of damages, including compensatory damages for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other economic and non-economic losses. In cases involving particularly egregious conduct, plaintiffs may also recover punitive damages to punish the defendant and deter future misconduct. See, e.g., Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal.App.3d 757 (1981).

In addition to monetary damages, plaintiffs may also seek equitable remedies such as injunctions to compel product recalls or safety modifications. Regulatory agencies, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, also have the authority to order product recalls and impose civil penalties for violations of safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. § 2064.

## Conclusion

Product liability law provides important protections for consumers injured by defective or unreasonably dangerous products. By imposing liability on manufacturers, distributors, and sellers, the law encourages product safety and ensures that injured parties are fairly compensated. The specific standards and elements of proof vary depending on the legal theory, but all product liability claims share the common goal of promoting consumer protection and accountability in the marketplace.