Orange County Personal Injury Attorney
Auto Accident, Truck Accident, Motorcycle Accident, Wrongful Death, Dog Bites, And Overtime

Personal Injury Attorney at a Personal Injury Law Firm. An Attorney For Every Need: Auto Accident Attorney, Accident Lawyer, Injury Attorney, Truck Accident Lawyer, Motorcycle Accident Lawyer,Wrongful Death Attorney, Dog Bite Lawyer and Overtime Lawyer

Contact Us Today

Toll Free 888-973-6639

Click Here To Find the Office
Nearest You

Offices in Los Angeles, Orange,
Newport Beach, Riverside, San Diego

More Sample Cases

Encinitas California Wrongful Death Claim

Serious Injury Claim San Diego California

Escondido California Serious PersonalInjury Claim

Escondido California Unpaid Overtime

San Marcos California Unpaid Overtime

Oceanside Dog Bite Personal Injury Claim

San Marcos California Personal Injury From A Car Accident

Vista California Personal Injury From A Car Accident

Aga Click Aqui Para Informacion en Espanol

All About Defective Products and Personal Injury Law

Personal injury claims arising as a result of defective product are a little more recent than personal injury claims arising from other things. The laws pertaining to personal injury claims for defective product not surprisingly started to develop as the industrial revolution took place. The first case in California to address a personal injury claim for a defective product was probably the case of Lewis v. Terry, 111 Cal.39, 43 P. 398 (1896). The Lewis case adopted a rule which basically imposed liability personal injury on the manufacturer when the manufacturer knew that the chattel was dangerous and failed to disclose it. An exception in personal injury law to the rule that there would be no liability without fault was made in the case of Winterbottom v. Wright, 10 M&W 109, 152 Eng. Rep. 403 (EX 1842), an English case, which basically said the manufacturer would not be liable unless there was a direct contract between the manufacturer and the buyer of the product. A second case in California adopted another personal injury exception to the Winterbottom ruling, in Catlin v. Union Oil Co., 31 Cal.App. 597, 161 P. 29 (1916), California adopted the inherently dangerous rule. The inherently dangerous rule basically imposed a tort duty on the manufacturer to exercise reasonable care in protecting the ultimate user for personal injury. This included dangerous things such as drugs, explosives, firearms, and food products. A leading judge in personal injury and tort law was justice Cardozo who expanded the liability of manufacturers in the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916). In the MacPherson case the judge held that if the manufacturer knows that the product will be used by persons other the buyer, and it is used without new testing, then the manufacturer of the product has a duty to manufacture it carefully and therefore there is personal injury liability when the manufacturer fails to comply. California adopted justice Cardozo’s ruling around 1934 in Kalash v. Los Angeles Ladder Co., 1 Cal.2d 229, 34 P.2d 481 (1934). In more modern times another exception developed which imposed personal injury liability on the manufacturer when the manufacturer violated a safety statute of regulation. Quiric v. Freeman, 98 Cal.App.2d 194, 219 P.2d 897 (1950).

A novel approach to personal injury liability started to develop in the 1930's which basically imposed liability based on the use of the product. There was the idea that the duty to manufacturer carefully to avoid personal injury ran with the goods regardless of the relationship of the user to the manufacturer. In modern day big business blames personal injury attorneys for many things and portray personal injury attorneys causing harm to society, but many of the cases that led to changes in personal injury law improved the quality of life for all. Today we take these things for granted and do not credit personal injury attorneys with any of the enhancements to the quality of life. American products had and continue to have an excellent reputation for quality and safety. In modern day society Chinese products often make the news when people are harmed or people die. The quality of American products to a great extent has been influenced by personal injury lawyers who simply help hold manufacturers accountable. The case in which California adopted a theory of greater personal injury liability is an excellent example of how and why personal injury attorneys made life better for society. In the case of Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co. Ltd. (1939), the lawsuit arose as a result of a ham and cheese sandwich infested with maggots that had been made by defendant and distributed to a restaurant for sale. The sandwich was purchased by a man that in turn gave it to his wife. The wife became sick as a result of biting into the maggot sandwich, this is where the court adopted the rule that even though there was no relationship between the buyer and the user of the product personal injury liability would be imposed.

One of the most profound cases for personal injury arising from defective products was the case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963). In Greeman justice Traynor another leading judge in the development of personal injury and law announced a ruling that changed the landscape of personal injury law in California. In Greenman the court held that the manufacturer of a product has represented that a product is safe for use by its actions of placing in the market and a personal injury claimant purchasing the product is relying on that representation. The loss of harm or personal injury arising for a defective product should be born by the manufacturer, because the manufacturer is in a better position to insure against liability by simply adding the cost to the price the product. This is one of the primarily complaints against big business, where they feel the cost from personal injury claims is too high. In reality personal injury claims have been on the decline and personal injury attorneys do not file weak lawsuits or file claims when the injuries are small. The primary reason why personal injury attorneys do not file lawsuits where the evidence is weak, is because they put their own time and money into lawsuits with an expectation of winning. If the personal injury attorney feels the case is a lost case they will not pursue it. When the personal injury attorney feels the case is too small compared to the amount of time, money, and effort required to win the case, they will likewise not pursue it. Even though big business and insurance companies have been successful in creating a negative image against personal injury attorneys, for the most part personal injury attorneys screen their cases very carefully. It is not unusual for personal injury law firms to accept only about 2% of all calls for personal injury claims. Some personal injury law firms may accept a higher percentage, but for the most part the percentage of potential personal injury claims accepted by attorneys is small. Prospective personal injury claimants are often disappointed when their claims are turned down, but the reality is that personal injury claims are difficult cases and very expensive to litigate. Some defective product personal injury claims require that several thousands of dollars be spent on engineers, or metallurgists, or scientists to determine if there is something wrong with the product. Sometimes the personal injury claim is borderline and the personal injury law firm may decide not pursue the claim after incurring several thousand dollars in expenses. The persons that really benefit in defective product litigation are researchers, scientists, and engineers that are experts in a particular product or procedure or whatever gives rise to the personal injury claim. These experts charge as much as $5,000 just to determine if there is something wrong after which they will charge much more to state why the product is defective and why the personal injury claimant got injured. Soon after the Greenman ruling, California adopted another rule which imposed personal injury liability when bystanders were injured. In Elmore v. American Motors Corp., 70 Cal.2d 578, 75 Cal.Rptr. 652 (1969), the court held that bystanders should have greater protection from defective product, because they have no relationship with the manufacturer or seller and are in a weakened position, since they cannot even inspect the product for defects.

The theory of strict liability developed primarily because there were many instances where the manufacturer took every precaution possible, but there were still injuries and the manufacturer was in a better position to absorb a loss than the personal injury claimant or innocent bystander. Personal injury law pertaining to defective products probably started in the mid 1200s in England where statutes imposed liability on the manufacturers and sellers of food and drink that was contaminated.

Personal injury claims for defective products are based on one or several personal injury liability theories. These theories for personal injury claims arising from defective products are strict tort liability, negligence, breach of warranty, false representation, and spoliation of evidence. Personal injury claims under strict liability must show that the manufacturer placed a product in the market with knowledge that the produced is to be used without inspection for defects and the produce has a defect that causes injury to a person. In a personal injury claim under strict liability the courts have held that the product has to be placed into the market in one case the utility owned and maintained streetlight was deemed to not have been placed in the market and therefore not subject to strict liability. The personal injury claimant also has to show that the product was defective. A defect is required to make a personal injury claim under a strict liability theory. Also, Strict liability theories are applied only to defective products that cause injury to humans and not animals. Not too long ago many of us remember when Chinese made ingredients made their way to dog food which caused many dogs to get sick and die, but for the most part animals are treated as property and there is no viable personal injury claim when a pet is injured or dies. There have been many instances where pet owners pay thousands of dollars on medical treatment for their pets and are disappointed to find that no personal injury claim can be made for their pet and that they are only entitled to recover the fair market value of their pet and not the medical bills incurred. In a few rare occasions there may be something significant about the pet that changes things, such as trained dogs for the blind. Strict liability has been used in personal injury claims for manufacturing defect, design defect, and warning defect. The strict liability theory for defective product in personal injury claims is different from a negligence theory, but even so elements of negligence personal injury claims have been incorporated into the strict liability theories. In a strict liability personal injury claim for defective design a jury is required to evaluate and weight a number of factors. The weighing of these factors is more akin negligence defective product claims for personal injury.

Personal injury claims for defective product under a theory of negligence are different from a theory of strict liability. One key theme of personal injury claims is foreseeability and in imposing liability on manufacturers and sellers of products is the requirement that the manufacturer or seller of any product be negligent in the sale or manufacture of a product that may reasonably be expected to be capable of inflicting substantial harmful if the product is defective. This expectation requirement is seem throughout personal injury laws. The personal injury claimant in a negligence defective product claim can proceed by showing that the product was as intended by the manufacturer was negligent in selling it, designing it, or failed to give adequate warnings or instructions. A second means of proceeding with a personal injury claim for defective product under a negligence claim is to negligence in the manufacturing of the product which resulted in a product with an unintended condition which caused the product to be unreasonably dangerous. Even though the idea seems simple at times they are complex and subject to great debate. A product may or may not be unreasonably dangerous depending on who you ask. A personal injury claim may be successful before one jury and fail before another, this sometimes happens such as the case of the roll over SUVs for examples. Some personal injury victims often find that they need to speak with more than one attorney to find an attorney that is interested in accepting the case and sometimes the personal injury claimant is unable to find an attorney. Personal injury claims for defective products under a theory of negligence for failure to give adequate warning or instructions often leads manufacturers to place outrageous warning signs on their products with the intent of expressing their disdain for these type of claims, but manufacturers that do this do so at their peril. A jury would not be to sympathetic to a manufacturer that invests time and money on putting useless warning or instructions when there is a real danger of personal injury to the user of the particular product.

Among the first personal injury claims arising from defective products was the theory of breach of warranty. These cases arose when the buyer buying directly from the manufacturer was injured by a defective product. Personal injury claims arising from a defective product claim for breach of warranty are based on breach of the seller’s expressed or implied warranty resulting in injury. In personal injury claims for breach of warranty implied warranty is applied by operation of law, even if the personal injury claimant did not enter into an agreement or has a warranty from the seller there is an implied warranty of merchantability for a particular use. In earlier days the typical breach of warranty claim was based on the grounds that the product was not what the personal injury claimant expected from the product purchased. Today this theory for a personal injury claim still remains and the implied or expressed warranty runs with the products, meaning it does not matter if there is a relationship between the user and the manufacturer or the seller. Implied warranties of fitness of the product for a particular use are now codified under California law. To make a personal injury claim for breach of warranty, the personal injury claimant has to show that there was a warranty, either expressed or implied, that there was a breach of warranty by the defendant, and that there is a causal connection between the breach of the warranty and the injury. Under the warranty personal injury claims there is legal theory which provides relief to a personal injury claimant when there is a false representation. In Hauter v. Zogarts, the personal injury claim was filed because the manufacturer represented that its golf training product was completely safe and the ball would not hit the player. The court held that as a matter of law the personal injury claimant should recover for the false representations. Liability for false representation depends on whether the injured resulted and whether or not the statement made about the product is false or not. There is a distinction between statements referred to as puffing which is basically an opinion and statements that factually describe an important characteristic of the product which goes beyond an opinion. It is a matter of what the personal injury claimant reasonably believed based on the statements made by the seller.

Under a strict liability theory for defective products claimants are no usually able to recover purely economic damages such as damage to lost property or loss of use of property. A claim for these type of losses can be made under a breach of warranty for defective product claim. A personal injury claim for defective product under a strict liability theory can also include a claim for what are called exemplary or punitive damages. This type of a personal injury claim seeks to make an example out of the manufacturer or to punish the manufacturer of the defective product. To succeed in a claim for exemplary or punitive damages the personal injury claimant also has to prove that there was oppression, fraud, or malice. These three terms take special meaning within California law and the personal injury claimant has to prove oppression, fraud, or malice as defined under California Law.

In California there is a statute of limitations to bring a personal injury claim regardless of whether the claim arises from a defective product or something else. This means that a personal injury claimant has to file a lawsuit for personal injuries within a specified time period which varies depending on the circumstances from about 6 months to several years. In the vast majority of situations the time limit to file a personal injury claim is two years. It is important for personal injury victims to contact a personal injury attorney as soon as possible, because of the time constraints. Some personal injury claims are routine, but some require extensive planning, investigation, and legal research and analyzes which makes it difficult for some busy personal injury attorneys to accept personal injury cases on short notice. When there is one week remaining it becomes very difficult for almost all attorneys to accept a personal injury case, because there is just not enough time to do all the things that are required. This is particularly true in personal injury claims arising from defective products. There are some exceptions to the personal injury statutes including personal injury claims for defective products. Most significantly in personal injury claims for defective product is the right to extend the statute of limitations to when the personal injury victim discovers that the product is defective or in some instances to the time when a personal injury victim should have discovered the cause of the injury if the personal injury claimant had exercised reasonable care. For this exception to apply the personal injury claimant has to have a good basis for not discovering the harm caused by the product much earlier. A breach of warranty claim for defective product even though it pertains to contracts still results in a personal injury statute of limitations which is normally two years.

I am an Orange County personal injury lawyer and this is my own personal website and the opinions and the content on this website are my own and may not reflect the opinions of my employer. I am solely responsible for the content.

Our cases are no win no fee accident claims. I work with several other personal injury lawyers. You will see testimonials, but keep in mind that the testimonial or endorsements do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter."

Actual Client Testimonial:

"Arnold Hernandez really works hard to win for you. He did a great job for me and he will for you." - Jane Larson

"This testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter."

Look at this website as a starting point, but do not rely on this information, it is not legal advise and the law changes frequently. Call me and speak with an Orange County personal injury lawyer at my office before making any decision that may affect your legal rights. I practice law in California and do not offer legal representation in any other state. I represent plaintiffs in personal injury, wrongful death, and unpaid overtime claims. Cases are accepted on a contingency basis, meaning lawyer fees are not due until I win at trial or obtain a favorable result for you. To discuss your specific situation call me.