Attorneys who focus exclusively on strict liability in a product defect case sometimes overlook a parallel and complementary theory: negligent design California consumer products claims. While strict liability focuses on the condition of the product itself, a negligence claim examines the manufacturer's conduct in the design process, and pleading both theories together strengthens a case in ways strict liability alone cannot achieve. This approach informed the litigation strategy behind the firm's home fire product case.
2
Paths to a plaintiff's verdict when negligence is pleaded with strict liability
3294
Civil Code section that can support punitive damages on strong facts
A negligent design California consumer products claim requires proving that the manufacturer failed to exercise the care a reasonably prudent manufacturer would have exercised under similar circumstances in designing the product. This is a different showing than strict liability, which does not require proof of unreasonable conduct. Pleading both theories gives the jury more than one path to a plaintiff's verdict and can be particularly valuable when the evidence of the manufacturer's internal decision-making is strong, showing a conscious choice to accept a known risk rather than adopt a safer design.
Effective negligent design California consumer products litigation typically centers on the manufacturer's internal documentation from the design and development phase of the product. This includes engineering design reviews, internal risk assessments, correspondence discussing tradeoffs between safety and cost, and any records showing the company considered and rejected a safer alternative design during development. When a manufacturer's own documents show engineers or safety personnel raised concerns about a specific risk, and those concerns were overridden or ignored by management for cost or schedule reasons, this evidence becomes some of the most powerful material in the entire case. It transforms the narrative from an abstract discussion of engineering tradeoffs into a concrete story about a company choosing profit over safety.
Negligence is measured against what a reasonably prudent manufacturer in the same industry would have done under similar circumstances at the time the product was designed. This often requires expert testimony on industry custom and practice, voluntary consensus safety standards, government safety regulations, and the design practices of competitors during the same period.
A common defense is that the design reflected the state of the art, meaning no safer alternative was feasible. Rebutting it requires specific evidence that a safer alternative was not merely theoretical but actually available and feasible. Evidence that the company already used a safer design in a different product line or market is often decisive.
A well-documented case showing the manufacturer knowingly disregarded a significant known risk can support punitive damages under California Civil Code section 3294, which permits them where a defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. The clear and convincing standard typically requires internal documents showing actual knowledge combined with a conscious decision to proceed.
Presenting negligent design and strict liability together lets counsel tell a complete story: the product was defective under the risk-benefit test, and the manufacturer's own conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent company.
The case behind this page
The home fire product case that paired negligence with strict liability for a grieving family.
Open the case studyThe other theory
The doctrine that pairs with a negligence claim in a product case.
The doctrine explainedRelated breakdowns from this case and our product liability practice.
We take product liability and wrongful death cases as counsel or co-counsel and pay statutory referral fees. Call 323-658-8077 to discuss a referral.
Refer a casePleading both theories gives the jury more than one path to a plaintiff's verdict. Negligent design focuses on the manufacturer's conduct during the design process, which can be particularly powerful when internal documents show the company knowingly accepted a risk rather than adopting a safer design.
Internal engineering design reviews, risk assessments, correspondence discussing safety versus cost tradeoffs, and records showing the company considered and rejected a safer alternative design are the core evidence in a negligent design claim.
The state of the art defense argues no safer design was feasible given the technology available at the time. It is defeated with specific evidence that a safer alternative design was actually available and feasible, particularly if the same manufacturer or a competitor already used it in a different product or market.
