1. The defendant manufactured/distributed/sold the product;
2. The product contained a manufacturing defect when it left the defendant’s possession;
3. The plaintiff was harmed; and
4. The product’s defect was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.
“A manufacturing defect occurs when an item is manufactured in a substandard condition.” Gonzalez v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 154 Cal.App.4th 780, 792 (2007).
“[A] defendant involved in the marketing/distribution process has been held strictly liable if three factors are present:
(1) the defendant received a direct financial benefit from its activities and from the sale of the product;
(2) the defendant’s role was integral to the business enterprise such that the defendant’s conduct was a necessary factor in bringing the product to the initial consumer market; and
(3) the defendant had control over, or a substantial ability to influence, the manufacturing or distribution process.”
Bay Summit Community Ass’n v. Shell Oil Co., 51 Cal. App. 4th 762, 773 (1996).
CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS
California Supreme Court: Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal. 4th 548, 572 (1994) (“substantial factor” requirement); Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413, 428 (1978).
California 1st Dist.: Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 564, 585 (2009) (referring to “manufacturing defect” as basis for liability).
California 2d Dist.: Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 214 Cal. App. 4th 173, 190 (2013).
California 3d Dist.: None.
California 4th Dist.: In re Coordinated Latex Glove Litig., 99 Cal. App. 4th 594, 613 (2002).
California 5th Dist.: None.
California 6th Dist.: None.
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURTS
United States Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit: Garcia v. County of Alameda, 2 Fed. Appx. 769, 770 (9th Cir. 2001).
Central District: Michery v. Ford Motor Co., No. CV 12-04957 RSWL (FFMx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161445, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2013).
Eastern District: Waldo v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. CIV. S-13-0789 LKK/EFB, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145772, at *8-9 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2013); Crayton v. Rochester Med. Corp., No. 1:07-CV-1318, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11112, at *35 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2011).
Northern District: Tucker v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., No. 11-CV-03086-YGR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38354, at *35-36 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013).
Southern District: Fontalvo v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., No. 13-cv-0331-GPC-KSC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116052, at *8-9 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013).