DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, California ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of California
DATE: [Date]
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
[General Counsel / Risk Management / Claims Representative]
[Manufacturer / Distributor / Retailer Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]
RE: PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Claimant: [Client Full Name]
Date of Incident: [Date]
Product: [Product Name, Model Number, Serial Number]
Manufacturer: [Manufacturer Name]
Purchase Date/Location: [Date / Retailer Name]
Claim Number: [If assigned]
Dear [Recipient Name]:
This firm represents [Client Name] in connection with serious personal injuries caused by a defective [Product Name] designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by your company. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement pursuant to California law.
I. CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Governing Law
California is a leading jurisdiction for products liability law. California adopted strict products liability in the landmark case Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, which preceded and influenced the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402A.
B. Theories of Liability Recognized
California recognizes the following products liability theories:
1. Strict Products Liability:
California's strict liability doctrine is well-established. A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article it places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57.
The doctrine applies to the entire chain of distribution, including manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256.
2. Negligence:
Traditional negligence claims for negligent design, manufacture, testing, inspection, and failure to warn. Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049.
3. Breach of Warranty:
Express and implied warranty claims under California's version of the UCC, Cal. Com. Code Sections 2313 through 2315. Note: The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. Civ. Code Section 1790 et seq.) may also apply for consumer goods.
C. Statute of Limitations
Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 335.1, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including products liability, is two (2) years from the date of injury. The discovery rule may toll this period. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797.
This claim arises from an injury that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].
D. Statute of Repose
California does not have a statute of repose for products liability claims. Claims may be brought regardless of when the product was manufactured, provided they fall within the statute of limitations.
E. Pure Comparative Fault
California follows pure comparative negligence established in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but recovery is not barred regardless of the degree of fault.
Our client bears no responsibility for this incident: [Describe why]
F. Joint and Several Liability
Under Proposition 51 (Cal. Civ. Code Section 1431.2):
- Defendants remain jointly and severally liable for economic damages
- Defendants are severally liable only for non-economic damages (each pays only their proportionate share)
G. Punitive Damages
Punitive damages are available in California under Cal. Civ. Code Section 3294 upon clear and convincing evidence of "oppression, fraud, or malice."
- Malice: Conduct intended to cause injury or despicable conduct with willful and conscious disregard of others' rights and safety
- Oppression: Despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship
- Fraud: Intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment
California has no statutory cap on punitive damages, but they are subject to due process limitations. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408.
II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - SPOLIATION WARNING
YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this product and claim, including but not limited to:
Product-Related:
- [ ] The subject product and all component parts
- [ ] All exemplar products of the same make and model
- [ ] Design documents, specifications, and engineering drawings
- [ ] Manufacturing records for the subject product
- [ ] Quality control records and inspection reports
- [ ] Testing data and results (pre-market and post-market)
- [ ] Safety assessments and risk analyses
- [ ] FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) documents
- [ ] All versions of owner's manuals, instructions, warnings, and labels
Regulatory and Complaints:
- [ ] Communications with FDA, CPSC, NHTSA, or other regulatory agencies
- [ ] Consumer complaints involving this product
- [ ] Prior claims and lawsuits involving this product
- [ ] Recall notices and service bulletins
California recognizes independent tort claims for intentional spoliation of evidence. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1. Additionally, negligent spoliation may support sanctions and adverse inferences. Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215.
III. THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT
A. Product Identification
| Product Information | Details |
|---|---|
| Product Name | [Full Product Name] |
| Manufacturer | [Manufacturer Name and Address] |
| Model Number | [Model Number] |
| Serial Number | [Serial Number] |
| Date of Manufacture | [Date, if known] |
| Lot/Batch Number | [If known] |
| Date of Purchase | [Purchase Date] |
| Retailer/Seller | [Retailer Name and Location] |
| Purchase Price | $[Amount] |
B. Chain of Distribution
| Entity | Role | Contact |
|---|---|---|
| [Manufacturer Name] | Manufacturer | [Address] |
| [Component Supplier] | Component Manufacturer | [Address] |
| [Distributor Name] | Distributor | [Address] |
| [Retailer Name] | Retailer/Seller | [Address] |
IV. THE DEFECT
A. Nature of Defect - Design Defect
California applies two alternative tests for design defects:
1. Consumer Expectation Test:
A product is defective if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413.
2. Risk-Benefit Test:
A product is defective if the risks of the design outweigh the benefits. The plaintiff must prove the design was a proximate cause of injury; the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove the benefits outweighed the risks. Barker, 20 Cal.3d at 430-432.
Factors in Risk-Benefit Analysis:
1. The gravity of the danger posed by the design
2. The likelihood that danger would occur
3. The mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design
4. The financial cost of an improved design
5. The adverse consequences of an alternative design
The [Product Name] contains a design defect in that:
[Detailed description of design defect]
Alternative Safer Design:
A feasible alternative design existed that would have prevented this injury:
[Describe alternative design]
B. Nature of Defect - Manufacturing Defect
A manufacturing defect exists when the specific product departs from its intended design, making it more dangerous than intended. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 59 Cal.2d at 64.
The product at issue:
[Describe manufacturing defect if applicable]
C. Nature of Defect - Failure to Warn
Under California law, a product is defective if it lacks adequate warnings of foreseeable risks of harm. Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987.
A manufacturer has a continuing duty to warn of dangers discovered after the product is sold. Carlin v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1104.
The warnings provided were inadequate because:
[Describe warning deficiencies]
V. THE INCIDENT
A. How the Injury Occurred
On [Date], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe what client was doing with the product]:
[Detailed narrative of the incident]
B. Foreseeable Use
Our client was using the product in a manner that was:
- [ ] Intended by the manufacturer
- [ ] Foreseeable by the manufacturer
- [ ] In accordance with provided instructions
C. Comparative Fault Analysis
Our client exercised reasonable care at all times and bears no responsibility for this incident. Under California's pure comparative fault system, even if any fault were attributable to our client, recovery would only be reduced proportionally.
VI. LIABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Strict Products Liability
All elements of strict products liability under California law are satisfied:
-
Defective Condition: The product contained a [design / manufacturing / warning] defect as described above.
-
Consumer Expectation / Risk-Benefit: Under Barker v. Lull, the product either failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect, or the risks of the design outweighed the benefits.
-
Defect Existed When Product Left Defendant's Control: The defect was present when the product left the defendant's control.
-
Causation: The defect was a substantial factor in causing our client's injuries. Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953.
-
Damages: Our client has suffered substantial damages as detailed herein.
B. Negligence
Your company breached its duty of care by:
-
Negligent Design: Designing a product with an unreasonably dangerous characteristic when safer alternatives existed.
-
Negligent Manufacture: Failing to implement adequate quality control procedures.
-
Negligent Failure to Warn: Failing to provide adequate warnings of known dangers.
-
Negligent Testing: Failing to adequately test the product before sale.
C. Breach of Warranty
Express Warranty (Cal. Com. Code Section 2313):
Your company expressly warranted that [describe warranty]. This warranty was breached.
Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Cal. Com. Code Section 2314):
The product was not fit for its ordinary purpose due to the defect.
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (if applicable):
If the product is a consumer good, additional remedies may be available under Cal. Civ. Code Section 1790 et seq.
VII. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF DEFECT
Evidence of your company's prior knowledge of this defect includes:
- [ ] [Number] prior complaints regarding this defect
- [ ] [Number] prior injuries from this defect
- [ ] Recall or service bulletins issued
- [ ] Internal documents acknowledging the defect
Such prior knowledge supports an award of punitive damages under Cal. Civ. Code Section 3294, as it demonstrates willful and conscious disregard for consumer safety.
VIII. INJURIES AND DAMAGES
A. Injuries Sustained
As a direct and proximate result of the defective product, our client sustained:
Physical Injuries:
- [ ] [Injury 1]
- [ ] [Injury 2]
- [ ] [Injury 3]
Surgeries and Procedures:
- [ ] [Surgery 1]
- [ ] [Surgery 2]
Permanent Conditions:
- [ ] [Permanent condition 1]
- [ ] [Permanent condition 2]
B. Medical Expenses
| Provider | Service | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| [Provider 1] | [Service] | $[Amount] |
| [Provider 2] | [Service] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
Future Medical Expenses: $[Amount]
C. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL LOST WAGES | $[Total] |
D. Non-Economic Damages
California has no cap on non-economic damages for personal injury (Proposition 51 applies to apportionment, not caps)
- Physical pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Disfigurement
- Loss of enjoyment of life
E. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| Disfigurement | $[Amount] |
| Emotional Distress | $[Amount] |
| Loss of Enjoyment of Life | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL COMPENSATORY DAMAGES | $[Total] |
F. Punitive Damages
Your company's conduct warrants punitive damages under Cal. Civ. Code Section 3294. Your company acted with conscious disregard for consumer safety, constituting malice under California law.
IX. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Based upon the clear liability of your company under California law and the severe injuries suffered by our client, we hereby demand:
$[DEMAND AMOUNT]
This demand will remain open for forty-five (45) days from the date of this letter, expiring at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on [Expiration Date].
CCP Section 998 Notice
We reserve the right to serve a formal offer to compromise pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 998. Failure to obtain a more favorable judgment than a 998 offer may result in cost-shifting, including expert witness fees.
X. CONCLUSION
This case involves a defective product that caused serious, permanent injuries to our client. Your company is strictly liable under California's well-established products liability doctrine.
If this matter cannot be resolved, we are prepared to file suit in the Superior Court of California, County of [County], and to pursue this matter through trial.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
State Bar of California No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: [List]
cc: [Client Name]
[File]
CALIFORNIA PRODUCTS LIABILITY PRACTICE NOTES
-
[ ] Pure Comparative Fault: California allows recovery even if plaintiff is more at fault - only reduced by percentage of fault.
-
[ ] No Statute of Repose: California has no products liability statute of repose.
-
[ ] Barker Burden Shift: In design defect cases under risk-benefit test, once plaintiff shows design was proximate cause, burden shifts to defendant.
-
[ ] Prop 51: Joint and several liability for economic damages only; several liability for non-economic damages.
-
[ ] CCP 998 Offers: Important cost-shifting mechanism - expert witness fees may be recoverable.
-
[ ] Punitive Damages: Requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice. No statutory cap.
-
[ ] Continuing Duty to Warn: Manufacturer has post-sale duty to warn of discovered dangers.
-
[ ] Component Manufacturer Liability: Component manufacturers may be liable under O'Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335.
-
[ ] Economic Loss Rule: California recognizes the economic loss rule, but with significant exceptions. Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979.
-
[ ] Venue: Superior Court in county where injury occurred or where defendant resides or does business.
California products liability law is complex and plaintiff-friendly. This template must be reviewed and customized by a licensed California attorney before use.