 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jimenez v. Superior Court Of San Diego County8/1/2000
doing business." (Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, 24 Cal.2d at p. 462 (conc. opn. of Traynor, J.) A manufacturer is in the best position to insure against losses suffered because of its defective products. It can self-insure or purchase insurance from a third party and then either (1) spread the cost of that insurance among all consumers by charging a proportionately higher price for its product, or (2) absorb the cost of that insurance and thereby reduce the profit it would otherwise make from the sale of its product. By imposing strict products liability on the manufacturer of a defective product, individual consumers will be less likely to have to bear the entire cost of losses suffered from that defective product and normally should be able to obtain full reparation for their losses.
Another purpose of strict products liability is to reduce the litigation costs incurred by a plaintiff and to ensure a defendant that places a defective product on the market does not escape liability by eliminating the requirement that the plaintiff show the defendant was negligent. The Restatement Third of Torts, Products Liability, section 2, comment a, at page 15 states: " y eliminating the issue of manufacturer fault from plaintiff's case, strict liability reduces the transaction costs involved in litigating that issue. [ ] . . . In many cases manufacturing defects are in fact caused by manufacturer negligence but plaintiffs have difficulty proving it. Strict liability therefore performs a function similar to the concept of res ipsa loquitur, allowing deserving plaintiffs to succeed notwithstanding what would otherwise be difficult or insuperable problems of proof." That purpose supports imposition of strict products liability in this case. Although Plaintiffs may be able to sustain their burden to show that the windows were defective when they left Defendants' possession, they could have difficulty in further showing Defendants were negligent. To eliminate the expense and possible difficulty in proving Defendants' negligence in this case, the doctrine of strict products liability should apply.
We conclude that the purposes of imposing strict products liability support the application of the doctrine in this case.
VI. Casey and the Subcontractor Exception
Defendants contend the holding in Casey and the rationale of La Jolla Village Homeowners' Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d 1131 (La Jolla Village) preclude the application of strict products liability in this case. Defendants' position is that, based on Casey and La Jolla Village, strict products liability in the context of mass- produced housing is limited to the developer and does not apply to subcontractors, material suppliers or component manufacturers.
A.
We discuss La Jolla Village first because it was cited as controlling precedent in Casey. In La Jolla Village, the trial court struck from the homeowners association's complaint a cause of action for strict products liability against all subcontractors "involved in 'constructing and manufacturing'" a new condominium building. (La Jolla Village, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1136-1137.) The cause of action for strict products liability against the condominium's developer was not struck. (Id. at pp. 1136-1138.) In granting the subcontractors' motion to strike, the trial court stated: "'I don't believe the strict [products] liability [doctrine] extends to the subcontractors for performing services as opposed to [supplying] a component product.'" (Id. at p. 1138, italics added.) The trial court explained: "' here is no strict liability on the part of the subcontractors who furnished primarily services as opposed to a component pa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|