Who can you sue for a defective product injury in California?

In California, you can usually sue every business that put a defective product into your hands: the manufacturer and the distributors, wholesalers and retailers in its chain of distribution. Strict liability means you do not have to prove any of them was careless, only that the product was defective and the defect caused your injury (Greenman; Vandermark). Makers of component parts face narrower rules, two appeals courts have allowed strict liability claims against Amazon, and the deadline for most injury suits is two years (CCP § 335.1).

By Michael Shemtoub, trial attorney, Beverly Law. Updated November 2026.

Call (310) 552-6959 Text us WhatsApp

Hurt by a defective product in California?

Leave your name and phone. We call back today, in English or Spanish. The consultation is free and confidential.

Free consultation · English y Español · No fees or costs unless we win

Manufacturers and the rest of the chain of distribution

California’s rule starts with Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57. The California Supreme Court held that a manufacturer who sells a product expecting people to use it without checking it for defects is strictly liable when a defect in that product injures someone.

The next year, Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256 applied the same rule to retailers. The court reasoned that retailers are an integral part of the enterprise that makes and markets the product, so they should bear the cost of injuries that defects cause. In the following years the rule reached bailors, lessors, wholesalers, distributors and sellers of mass-produced homes, as summarized in Bolger v. Amazon.com.

You do not have to be the buyer. CACI No. 1200 quotes Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969), which refused to limit strict liability to buyers and users and extended it to injured bystanders. It also quotes Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994): a manufacturer, distributor or retailer is liable when a defect in the manufacture or design of its product causes injury during a reasonably foreseeable use.

Companies at the edge of the chain face a test quoted in CACI No. 1200. They can be strictly liable if they received a direct financial benefit from the sale, played a necessary role in bringing the product to market, and could control or substantially influence its manufacture or distribution.

Who can be sued at a glance

How California courts have treated each type of defendant in a strict liability claim:

Who can be sued	Rule	Source
Manufacturer of the finished product	Strictly liable for a defect that injures someone; no proof of carelessness needed	Greenman (1963)
Retailer that sold the product	Strictly liable on the same terms as the manufacturer	Vandermark (1964)
Wholesalers, distributors, lessors	Covered as links in the chain of distribution	Bolger (2020), citing Cronin (1972)
Maker of a component part	Liable if its own part was defective, or if it substantially took part in designing the part into the product and that integration made the product defective	O’Neil (2012); CACI No. 1208
Maker of a product used with another company’s product	Not liable for harm from the other product unless its own product contributed substantially or it substantially helped create the harmful combined use	O’Neil (2012)
Amazon, for a third-party seller’s product	Can be strictly liable on facts like those in these two cases	Bolger (2020); Loomis (2021)
Used-goods dealer	Generally not strictly liable unless it rebuilt or reconditioned the product	Bolger (2020), describing Peterson (1995)
Hospital that supplied a device	Not strictly liable as a service provider; negligence claims unaffected	CACI No. 1200, quoting Bigler-Engler (2017)

Component part makers and the limits set in O’Neil

Many products contain parts made by other companies, such as a switch inside a power tool. In O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, the California Supreme Court restated the component parts doctrine: a component maker is not liable for injuries caused by the finished product unless the component itself was defective and caused harm.

CACI No. 1208 adds a second path, drawn from Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties, Inc. (2016). A component maker can be liable if it substantially participated in integrating its part into the design of the end product, the integration made the end product defective, and that defect caused the harm. The injured person must prove one of these exceptions.

O’Neil, a case over asbestos in replacement parts and adjacent products used with Navy valves and pumps, also limited claims over neighboring products. The court held that a manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by another manufacturer’s product unless its own product contributed substantially to the harm, or it participated substantially in creating a harmful combined use of the products.

Amazon and other online marketplaces

In Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 431, the plaintiff bought a replacement laptop battery listed on Amazon by a third-party seller. Amazon stored it in its warehouse, took payment and shipped it in Amazon packaging. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that Amazon was a direct link in the chain of distribution and could be strictly liable under those circumstances. It also held that federal Section 230 did not shield Amazon, because the claim rested on Amazon’s role in the sale.

In Loomis v. Amazon.com LLC (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 466, the Second District reached the same result over a hoverboard that caught fire while charging, even though the seller shipped it without using Amazon’s fulfillment service. The court pointed to Amazon taking the order, processing payment, routing all buyer and seller messages, and keeping a 15 percent referral fee. It agreed Bolger was correctly decided and noted the California Supreme Court had denied review in Bolger.

Both rulings reversed summary judgments for Amazon and sent the cases back, so neither decided the final outcome. In a new case, who stored, shipped, took payment for and controlled the listing of your product will matter.

The three defect types and the design-defect tests

The Judicial Council’s jury instructions, CACI (2026 edition), list three kinds of defect in CACI No. 1200.

Manufacturing defect (CACI Nos. 1201, 1202). The product differs from the manufacturer’s design or specifications, or from other typical units of the same line, and the defect existed when it left the defendant’s possession.
Design defect, consumer expectation test (CACI No. 1203). The product did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected when used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way.
Design defect, risk-benefit test (CACI No. 1204). You prove the design was a substantial factor in causing harm. The defendant must then prove the design’s benefits outweigh its risks, judged by the gravity and likelihood of harm and the feasibility, cost and disadvantages of a safer alternative design.
Failure to warn (CACI No. 1205). The product had known or knowable risks that posed a substantial danger, ordinary consumers would not have recognized them, and the defendant did not adequately warn or instruct.

The two design tests come from Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, a case about a high-lift loader. Each instruction opens with the same element: the defendant manufactured, distributed or sold the product. That is why a maker, a distributor and a store can all be named on one claim.

In Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725, a driver’s death was blamed on a defectively designed door latch, and the defense pointed to his intoxication and nonuse of safety equipment. The California Supreme Court extended comparative fault to strict products liability. The defendant’s liability stays strict, and recovery is reduced only to the extent the injured person’s own lack of reasonable care contributed (CACI No. 1207A).

Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 allows two years to sue for injury to, or the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another. The clock usually starts on the date of injury, but under Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103 it can start later if you had no reason to suspect wrongdoing caused the harm. Once a suspicion exists, you must go find the facts.

Not knowing who made the product does not stop the clock. Jolly repeated that ignorance of the defendant’s identity does not affect the limitations period, and noted that a plaintiff can file on time against a “Doe” defendant under Code of Civil Procedure section 474, then amend when the true name is found.

What this means for your case

List every business that touched the product. Check the label, the box, the receipt and the product listing. For an online order, write down the “sold by” and “shipped by” names, and note any brand and part numbers on the piece that failed.
Keep the product and every broken piece. Do not repair it, throw it away or hand it to the seller, the maker or an insurer. Photograph it and your injuries, and save your order history and messages with the seller.
Note two dates: when you were hurt, and when you first suspected the product caused it. Two years under CCP § 335.1 goes by quickly, and companies located overseas take time to identify and serve.

Beverly Law represents injured people across California, including in defective product injury cases. See also our pages on injury deadlines and comparative fault. Call (310) 552-6959 for a free case review. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.

Common questions

Can I sue the store even though it did not make the product?

Usually, yes. Since Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964), California has held retailers strictly liable for defects in the products they sell, on the same terms as manufacturers. The store and the manufacturer can be named in the same lawsuit.

I bought it on Amazon from a third-party seller. Can Amazon be sued?

Possibly. In Bolger v. Amazon.com (2020) and Loomis v. Amazon.com (2021), California appeals courts held that Amazon could be strictly liable for third-party products because of its role in taking the order, handling payment and controlling the sale. Both rulings turned on their facts, so how your order was handled matters.

The part that failed was made by a different company. Who is responsible?

The maker of the finished product and the businesses that sold it remain responsible for a defective product. Under O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012), the part maker is also liable if its own part was defective. Under CACI No. 1208, which follows Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties (2016), it can also be liable for a defect in the finished product if it substantially took part in designing its part into that product and the integration made the product defective.

I bought the product used. Can I sue the shop that sold it to me?

A dealer in used goods is generally not strictly liable for defects unless it rebuilt or reconditioned the product. The original manufacturer may still be responsible for a defect that existed when the product left its hands.

Does it hurt my claim if I was partly at fault?

It can reduce what you recover, but it does not wipe out the claim. Under Daly v. General Motors (1978), comparative fault applies to strict product liability, so your damages are reduced by your share of fault while the defendant’s liability stays strict.

Ask a question

Not ready to call? Write your question and someone on our team will answer. No cost, no commitment.

BEVERLY LAW · PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEYS

Injury lawyer — Beverly Law

If you were hurt because of someone else in California, Texas or Washington, talk to a lawyer about your options. Free, confidential, English or Spanish. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.

✓Free consultation✓No fees or costs unless we win✓English y Español✓Available 24/7

Call (310) 552-6959 Free case review

California injury lawyers · Defective product burn injury lawyer · Personal injury statute of limitations in California, Texas and Washington · How fault is determined in California, Texas and Washington · How long do you have to file a product liability claim in Washington? · How long do you have to sue over a defective product in Texas?

Sources

Important: This page is general information, not legal or medical advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different; talk to a lawyer about yours. Last reviewed: November 10, 2026.