Knowing how comparative fault works is essential because it directly impacts your compensation. The state’s pure comparative fault rule allows you to recover damages from a defective product even if you are partially to blame. However, there is more you should understand about this law.
Keep reading to learn how comparative fault works in product liability cases. Our client-focused personal injury attorneys at CaseyGerry explain why this legal doctrine is critical to your case.
How Pure Comparative Negligence Applies to Product Liability Cases
In California, a product liability case works under a pure comparative negligence rule. Per this doctrine, you can still recover compensation for your injuries even if you are 99 percent r. However, your total settlement is directly reduced by your exact percentage of fault.
Let us pretend that you misused the product, ignored clear warnings, or assumed the risk of injury. In this example, assume a jury found you 20 percent responsible for your injury and assessed your total damages at $10,000. Your compensation would be reduced by 20 percent, or $2,000, and you would collect the difference, or $8,000.
Strict Liability in Product Liability Cases
Product liability in California generally operates on strict liability, meaning you do not necessarily need to prove the manufacturer or distributor was negligent to win the case, regardless of fault or intent. However, the company can still argue comparative fault to reduce its liability, putting some of the burden of proof back on you.
While you do not have to prove the manufacturer acted carelessly, you do need to prove that the product had a defective design, manufacturing process, or marketing materials, or that the company failed to warn consumers of the danger. We must also show that the defect existed when it left the manufacturer or distributor’s possession and that it was a substantial factor in causing your injury.
Does the Product’s Manufacturer Have a Burden of Proof?
If the product’s manufacturer intends to blame you for your injuries to reduce your compensation under California’s comparative fault rule, then yes. While the company does not have to prove it used reasonable care in a product liability case, it does have to prove that you were negligent to successfully lower your damages under comparative fault.
If the manufacturer raises specific affirmative defenses to escape at least some of the liability, it must show the jury that you used the product in a way it could not have reasonably foreseen. It must also prove that your specific negligence was a substantial factor in how the product caused you harm.
Learn More About How Comparative Fault Works in a Product Liability Claim
Even though strict liability disregards your carelessness, your actions still matter under California’s comparative fault law. That is why it is essential to have an experienced CaseyGerry personal injury attorney on your team to aggressively fight for the compensation you are entitled to.
Set up a time for your free consultation and bring us your questions about how comparative fault works in product liability cases. We have proudly served our community since 1947 and have minimized our clients’ fault in many cases throughout the decades.