California is the birthplace of strict products liability. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57 and Soule v. GM (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548 anchor the framework — manufacturer liability without proof of negligence.
Call (888) 528-8595 for a free consultationCalifornia is the birthplace of strict products liability. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57 — the seminal California Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Roger Traynor — established that a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article it places on the market, knowing it is to be used without inspection for defects, has a defect that causes injury. The doctrine has since spread nationwide but remains uniquely strong in California through subsequent case law.
On framework, three theories of defect exist: manufacturing defect (the specific unit deviates from the manufacturer's intended design), design defect (the design itself is defective), and warning defect (the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions). Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548 sets the design-defect framework — consumer-expectation test for products whose ordinary expectations of safety can be readily applied, risk-benefit test for products where the design tradeoffs are not within the average consumer's expectations.
On punitive damages, Civil Code §3294 is central in product-defect cases. Manufacturer records — internal testing data, prior-similar-incident reports, recall histories, knowing-defect documentation — frequently support clear-and-convincing-evidence findings of malice. Discovery on these records is often the most consequential aspect of the case.
On case categories, product-defect cases span auto crashworthiness (Soule framework), pharmaceutical and medical-device cases (separate framework with FDA-preemption analysis), industrial machinery, consumer products, recreational equipment, food products, and lithium-ion battery and electrical cases (an emerging category). Each has its own expert and discovery profile.
Burg & Brock has handled catastrophic-injury cases out of the Sherman Oaks headquarters and the regional offices since the firm's founding more than two decades ago. The firm tries cases. Carriers settle differently with firms that have taken comparable cases through trial. Settlement value of an LA County serious-injury case correlates strongly with the demonstrated willingness of plaintiff's counsel to seat a jury.
On infrastructure, the firm has standing relationships with board-certified life-care planners, forensic economists, vocational-rehabilitation experts, biomechanical engineers, accident reconstructionists, and the treating-team physicians at Cedars-Sinai, Ronald Reagan UCLA, Harbor-UCLA, Keck Medical Center of USC, Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center, and Casa Colina Hospital and Centers for Healthcare. The expert-witness package is in place at intake.
On compensation structure, Burg & Brock works personal-injury cases on a contingency-fee basis. There is no upfront cost to the client. The fee is a percentage of the recovery, disclosed in the engagement letter. Case costs — expert fees, deposition transcripts, court-filing fees, life-care planner fees, economist fees — are advanced by the firm and reimbursed from the recovery. The consultation is free; a lawyer is available twenty-four hours a day on the (888) 528-8595 line. Spanish-speaking staff at every office.
California product-liability law runs through Greenman, Soule, and the supporting case law. Federal preemption analysis applies in pharmaceutical and medical-device cases.
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57 — seminal CA strict products liability decision. Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548 — design-defect framework (consumer-expectation versus risk-benefit). Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413 — burden-shifting framework on design defect.
Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987 — failure-to-warn framework. Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049 — pharmaceutical and medical-device framework. Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541 — medical-bill admissibility.
Product cases are document-heavy, expert-intensive, and often class- or coordinated-litigation eligible. The work is in the discovery and the expert analysis.
Operational note: product preservation is essential. Burg & Brock dispatches a litigation-hold and product-preservation notice within seventy-two hours of retention.
Product-liability defendants typically include the entire chain of distribution. The standard analysis includes:
Federal preemption analysis applies in pharmaceutical and medical-device cases. Wyeth v. Levine (2009) 555 U.S. 555 controls failure-to-warn preemption for prescription drugs; Riegel v. Medtronic (2008) 552 U.S. 312 controls medical-device-design preemption for premarket-approved devices.
Economic damages on product cases follow the standard tort framework. The injury severity drives the case value; product cases that produce catastrophic injuries (auto crashworthiness, lithium-ion battery fires, defective medical devices) reach seven and eight figures.
Non-economic damages cover pain and suffering, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of consortium.
Punitive damages under Civil Code §3294 are central in product cases when manufacturer-records discovery shows knowing-defect documentation, suppressed prior-incident reports, or delayed recalls. Eight-figure punitive verdicts are not unusual in California product cases.
| Case profile | Reported range | Drivers |
|---|---|---|
| Consumer-product defect with moderate injury | $95,000 – $385,000 | Manufacturing or design defect, surgical course. |
| Auto crashworthiness with severe injury | $725,000 – $3 million | Soule design-defect, expert work, manufacturer discovery. |
| Lithium-ion battery fire with serious burns | $525,000 – $2.4 million | Battery-defect theory, burn-injury course. |
| Catastrophic product-defect injury | $1.8 million – $10+ million | Severe injury, life-care plan, possible punitive exposure. |
| Punitive product-defect case | $3 million – $25+ million | Manufacturer-records-supported punitive verdict. |
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each case is evaluated on its own facts and applicable law.
Burg & Brock has tried strict products-liability cases through manufacturer expert depositions, product-preservation protocols, and the consumer-expectation/risk-benefit analytical framework.
Contingency fee. Free consultation.
LA County Superior Court — Stanley Mosk Courthouse — for cases in LA County. Federal court under diversity for major manufacturer-defendant cases.
Mass-tort and class-action product cases sometimes proceed in coordinated-litigation Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings or federal MDLs.
No fee unless we recover. Free consultation. Seven California offices, including Sherman Oaks (HQ), Glendale, Beverly Hills, Irvine, Bakersfield, Visalia, and Modesto.
Call (888) 528-8595Choose which categories of cookies and tracking technologies you allow on burgbrock.com. Strictly necessary cookies are always on so the site can function.
Required for the site to load, keep you signed in, and remember your preference choice. Always active.
Lets us see which pages people visit so we can improve the site. No personal data is sold.
Allows ad partners to measure the performance of ads you may have seen and show more relevant ads.
Powers extras like chat, embedded video, and remembered form fields. Turning these off may break some features.
