Navigating the Complex World of Alternative Liability in Strict Products Liability Cases in California: A Guide for Small Business Owners
Welcome to Your Guide on Strict Products Liability and Alternative Liability in California
As a small business owner in California, understanding the intricate legal landscape surrounding the manufacture, distribution, or sale of products is crucial. This guide delves into the critical aspects of strict products liability, with a special focus on the concept of alternative liability, equipping you with the knowledge to navigate these legal waters with confidence.
Understanding Strict Products Liability
Strict products liability is a doctrine that holds businesses accountable for damages caused by their products, irrespective of the care taken during their manufacture or distribution. If a product is found defective and results in injury or damage, any entity in its supply chain can be held liable simply because they played a part in bringing the product to market.
The Principle of Alternative Liability Explained
Alternative liability becomes relevant when an injury is caused by a product, and it's uncertain which of several defendants is responsible for the defect. This principle is particularly pertinent when multiple parties could have contributed to making the product defective, complicating the plaintiff's ability to identify the exact source of the fault.
Key Aspects of Alternative Liability in California
What This Means for Your Business
The stakes of strict products liability and alternative liability are high for small businesses, emphasizing the need for stringent quality control, transparent operations, and adequate legal preparation. Here's how to mitigate your risks:
Final Thoughts
Understanding strict products liability and alternative liability in California is essential for small business owners. This guide aims to provide a solid foundation, but remember, proactive steps and informed decisions are paramount in safeguarding your business against potential liabilities. For advice that's specifically tailored to your business needs, consider consulting with a legal expert in products liability.
Law related to Alternative Liability from CACI Jury Instruction 434
“When we consider the relative position of the parties and the results that would
flow if plaintiff was required to pin the injury on one of the defendants only, a
requirement that the burden of proof on that subject be shifted to defendants
becomes manifest. They are both wrongdoers - both negligent toward plaintiff.
They brought about a situation where the negligence of one of them injured the
plaintiff, hence it should rest with them each to absolve himself if he can. The
injured party has been placed by defendants in the unfair position of pointing to
which defendant caused the harm. If one can escape the other may also and
plaintiff is remediless.” (Summers, supra, 33 Cal.2d 80 at p. 86.)
• “California courts have applied the [Summers] alternative liability theory only
when all potential tortfeasors have been joined as defendants.” (Setliff v. E. I. Du
Pont de Nemours & Co. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1534-1535 [38
Cal.Rptr.2d 763].)
• “There is an important difference between the situation involved in Summers and
the present case. There, all the parties who were or could have been responsible
for the harm to the plaintiff were joined as defendants. Here, by contrast, there
are approximately 200 drug companies which made DES, any of which might
have manufactured the injury-producing drug.” (Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories
(1980) 26 Cal.3d 588, 602 [163 Cal.Rptr. 132, 607 P.2d 924].)
• “According to the Restatement, the burden of proof shifts to the defendants only
if the plaintiff can demonstrate that all defendants acted tortiously and that the
harm resulted from the conduct of one of them. (Rest.2d Torts, § 433B, com. g,
p. 446.) It goes on to state that the rule thus far has been applied only where all
the actors involved are joined as defendants and where the conduct of all is
simultaneous in time, but cases might arise in which some modification of the
rule would be necessary if one of the actors is or cannot be joined, or because of
the effects of lapse of time, or other circumstances.” (Sindell, supra, 26 Cal.3d at
p. 602, fn. 16.)
• “Summers applies to multiple tortfeasors not to multiple defendants, and it is
immaterial in this case that the matter went to trial only as against respondent,
for A, B, and/or C was also a tortfeasor.” (Vahey v. Sacia (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d
171, 177 [178 Cal.Rptr. 559], original italics, footnote omitted.)
• “[Restatement Second of Torts] Section 433B, subdivision (3) sets forth the rule
of Summers v. Tice, supra, 33 Cal. 2d 80, using its facts as an example.
Comment hprovides: ‘The cases thus far decided in which the rule stated in
Subsection (3) has been applied all have been cases in which all of the actors
involved have been joined as defendants. All of these cases have involved
conduct simultaneous in time, or substantially so, and all of them have involved
conduct of substantially the same character, creating substantially the same risk
of harm, on the part of each actor. It is possible that cases may arise in which
some modification of the rule stated may be necessary because of complications
arising from the fact that one of the actors involved is not or cannot be joined as
a defendant, or because of the effect of lapse of time, or because of substantial
differences in the character of the conduct of the actors or the risks which they
have created. Since such cases have not arisen, and the situations which might
arise are difficult to forecast, no attempt is made to deal with such problems in
this Section. The rule stated in Subsection (3) is not intended to preclude
possible modification if such situations call for it.’ ” (Setliff, supra, 32
Cal.App.4th at p. 1535.)
Secondary Sources
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Torts, § 1345
California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed.) § 1.16
1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 2, Causation, § 2.03 (Matthew Bender)
California Products Liability Actions, Ch. 7, Proof, § 7.06 (Matthew Bender)
33 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 380, Negligence, § 380.72
(Matthew Bender)
16 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 165, Negligence, § 165.330 (Matthew
Bender)
Welcome to Your Guide on Strict Products Liability and Alternative Liability in California
As a small business owner in California, understanding the intricate legal landscape surrounding the manufacture, distribution, or sale of products is crucial. This guide delves into the critical aspects of strict products liability, with a special focus on the concept of alternative liability, equipping you with the knowledge to navigate these legal waters with confidence.
Understanding Strict Products Liability
Strict products liability is a doctrine that holds businesses accountable for damages caused by their products, irrespective of the care taken during their manufacture or distribution. If a product is found defective and results in injury or damage, any entity in its supply chain can be held liable simply because they played a part in bringing the product to market.
The Principle of Alternative Liability Explained
Alternative liability becomes relevant when an injury is caused by a product, and it's uncertain which of several defendants is responsible for the defect. This principle is particularly pertinent when multiple parties could have contributed to making the product defective, complicating the plaintiff's ability to identify the exact source of the fault.
Key Aspects of Alternative Liability in California
- Joint and Several Liability: In cases where multiple defendants are liable for a defect, they might be held jointly and severally liable, meaning each one could be responsible for the entire damage amount, regardless of their fault proportion.
- Shifting the Burden of Proof: Unlike in standard negligence cases, alternative liability can shift the proof burden to the defendants, requiring them to demonstrate their non-responsibility for the harm.
- Policy Rationale: This principle aims to prevent injustice to the injured party, ensuring they receive compensation for their losses, particularly in scenarios where pinpointing the specific defect source is exceedingly challenging.
What This Means for Your Business
The stakes of strict products liability and alternative liability are high for small businesses, emphasizing the need for stringent quality control, transparent operations, and adequate legal preparation. Here's how to mitigate your risks:
- Implement Quality Control: Adopt and uphold rigorous quality control standards to reduce the likelihood of product defects.
- Maintain Documentation: Keep thorough records of your production and distribution activities. These records could be vital in defending your business in a legal dispute.
- Secure Insurance: Ensure you have sufficient liability insurance to cover potential claims, an essential component of your overall risk management strategy.
- Seek Legal Advice: Engage with legal professionals who specialize in products liability. Their expert advice can be invaluable in navigating the complexities specific to your business.
Final Thoughts
Understanding strict products liability and alternative liability in California is essential for small business owners. This guide aims to provide a solid foundation, but remember, proactive steps and informed decisions are paramount in safeguarding your business against potential liabilities. For advice that's specifically tailored to your business needs, consider consulting with a legal expert in products liability.
Law related to Alternative Liability from CACI Jury Instruction 434
“When we consider the relative position of the parties and the results that would
flow if plaintiff was required to pin the injury on one of the defendants only, a
requirement that the burden of proof on that subject be shifted to defendants
becomes manifest. They are both wrongdoers - both negligent toward plaintiff.
They brought about a situation where the negligence of one of them injured the
plaintiff, hence it should rest with them each to absolve himself if he can. The
injured party has been placed by defendants in the unfair position of pointing to
which defendant caused the harm. If one can escape the other may also and
plaintiff is remediless.” (Summers, supra, 33 Cal.2d 80 at p. 86.)
• “California courts have applied the [Summers] alternative liability theory only
when all potential tortfeasors have been joined as defendants.” (Setliff v. E. I. Du
Pont de Nemours & Co. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1534-1535 [38
Cal.Rptr.2d 763].)
• “There is an important difference between the situation involved in Summers and
the present case. There, all the parties who were or could have been responsible
for the harm to the plaintiff were joined as defendants. Here, by contrast, there
are approximately 200 drug companies which made DES, any of which might
have manufactured the injury-producing drug.” (Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories
(1980) 26 Cal.3d 588, 602 [163 Cal.Rptr. 132, 607 P.2d 924].)
• “According to the Restatement, the burden of proof shifts to the defendants only
if the plaintiff can demonstrate that all defendants acted tortiously and that the
harm resulted from the conduct of one of them. (Rest.2d Torts, § 433B, com. g,
p. 446.) It goes on to state that the rule thus far has been applied only where all
the actors involved are joined as defendants and where the conduct of all is
simultaneous in time, but cases might arise in which some modification of the
rule would be necessary if one of the actors is or cannot be joined, or because of
the effects of lapse of time, or other circumstances.” (Sindell, supra, 26 Cal.3d at
p. 602, fn. 16.)
• “Summers applies to multiple tortfeasors not to multiple defendants, and it is
immaterial in this case that the matter went to trial only as against respondent,
for A, B, and/or C was also a tortfeasor.” (Vahey v. Sacia (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d
171, 177 [178 Cal.Rptr. 559], original italics, footnote omitted.)
• “[Restatement Second of Torts] Section 433B, subdivision (3) sets forth the rule
of Summers v. Tice, supra, 33 Cal. 2d 80, using its facts as an example.
Comment hprovides: ‘The cases thus far decided in which the rule stated in
Subsection (3) has been applied all have been cases in which all of the actors
involved have been joined as defendants. All of these cases have involved
conduct simultaneous in time, or substantially so, and all of them have involved
conduct of substantially the same character, creating substantially the same risk
of harm, on the part of each actor. It is possible that cases may arise in which
some modification of the rule stated may be necessary because of complications
arising from the fact that one of the actors involved is not or cannot be joined as
a defendant, or because of the effect of lapse of time, or because of substantial
differences in the character of the conduct of the actors or the risks which they
have created. Since such cases have not arisen, and the situations which might
arise are difficult to forecast, no attempt is made to deal with such problems in
this Section. The rule stated in Subsection (3) is not intended to preclude
possible modification if such situations call for it.’ ” (Setliff, supra, 32
Cal.App.4th at p. 1535.)
Secondary Sources
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Torts, § 1345
California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed.) § 1.16
1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 2, Causation, § 2.03 (Matthew Bender)
California Products Liability Actions, Ch. 7, Proof, § 7.06 (Matthew Bender)
33 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 380, Negligence, § 380.72
(Matthew Bender)
16 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 165, Negligence, § 165.330 (Matthew
Bender)