Many people hurt by a product assume their only claim is against a manufacturer they have never dealt with, which may be overseas or hard to identify. In defective product cases, California law looks at the whole chain that brought the product to you. The store that sold it, the distributor or importer that supplied the store, and the manufacturer can all be responsible for the same defect.
This guide explains who in that chain can be held liable, why the law reaches a seller that never designed or built anything, how a warranty claim against the seller differs, and what limits apply.
How does a claim against the seller work, step by step?
- Find your proof of purchase. A receipt, order confirmation, card statement or the store's loyalty record shows who sold the product and when.
- Keep the product yourself. Do not return it to the store for a refund or exchange, because the product is the evidence of the defect for every company in the chain.
- Identify every company in the chain. The label, manual, packaging and shipping papers often name the manufacturer, importer or distributor in addition to the store.
- Tell the seller about the problem. For a warranty claim, a buyer must notify the seller of the breach within a reasonable time after discovering it or be barred from any remedy (Commercial Code 2607). The Judicial Council's instruction applies a more relaxed standard to a retail consumer than to a merchant buyer (CACI 1243).
- Name every company in one lawsuit. Strict liability claims against the seller and the maker can be brought together, with each company's role proven by the evidence.
- File within the deadline. An injury lawsuit must generally be filed within two years (Code of Civil Procedure 335.1). If a company's name is unknown when you file, the complaint can name it under a fictitious name and be amended when the true name is discovered (Code of Civil Procedure 474).
Who in the chain can be held responsible?
| Who | Strict liability for a defect? | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer of the finished product | Yes | CACI 1200 to 1205 |
| Distributor, wholesaler or importer | Yes, as a company that distributed the product | CACI 1200 to 1205 |
| Store or other retail seller | Yes, as a company that sold the product | CACI 1200 to 1205; decision quoted under CACI 1203 |
| Others in the marketing or distribution process | Only if they received a direct financial benefit, played an integral role in bringing the product to market, and had control over or substantial influence on manufacturing or distribution | Decisions quoted under CACI 1200 |
| Maker of a component part | Only if the component itself was defective, or the maker substantially participated in integrating it into a defective end product | CACI 1208 |
| Rental company | Judged by reasonable care: inspect for defects, make the product safe for its intended use, and warn of known dangers | CACI 1224 |
| Hospital or other provider of services | Not strictly liable for a product supplied during treatment, though negligence claims are not affected | Decision quoted under CACI 1200 |
Why can a store be liable when it did not make the product?
Each of the Judicial Council's strict liability instructions begins with the same first element: that the defendant manufactured, distributed or sold the product (CACI 1201, 1203, 1204 and 1205). A seller is therefore held to the same test as the maker. A decision the Judicial Council quotes under CACI 1203 states it plainly: a manufacturer, distributor or retailer is liable in tort if a defect in the manufacture or design of its product causes injury while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable way.
The reason is about who should bear the cost. A decision quoted under CACI 1200 explains that strict liability makes the companies that put defective products on the market bear the cost of the injuries, rather than the injured people, who are powerless to protect themselves. Another decision quoted there says that anyone identifiable as an integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise is subject to strict liability, and that when buying a product is the essence of the transaction, strict liability applies even to companies that are mere conduits in distributing it.
A seller does not escape that rule by pointing to the manufacturer. Its liability rests on its role in the chain, not on whether it was careless. If the seller also failed to use reasonable care, for example by not warning about or recalling a product after learning it was dangerous, negligence claims can be added (CACI 1222 and 1223).
Who pays if the maker and the store are both responsible?
This is one of the clearest advantages of naming the seller. Under California's general rule for cases with several defendants, each one pays only its own percentage of noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering (Civil Code 1431.2), as our guide on who pays when several parties are at fault explains. The Judicial Council's notes to CACI 1207B say a different rule applies inside a product's chain of distribution: there is no comparative fault among companies in the distribution chain of the same product, and each remains fully liable for the injured person's economic and noneconomic damages.
In practical terms, if a jury finds the product defective, the store, the distributor and the manufacturer can each be responsible for the whole award. That matters most when the manufacturer is overseas or out of business and the store or distributor is the company that can be reached. Percentages can still be assigned to people outside that chain, such as another driver whose own negligence contributed (CACI 1207B), and to the injured person's own share of fault (CACI 1207A).
Do I also have a warranty claim against the seller?
If you bought the product yourself from a merchant, you may. A warranty that goods are merchantable is implied in a sale when the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind (Commercial Code 2314). To recover, the buyer must prove that they bought the product from the defendant, that the defendant was in the business of selling those goods, that the product did not have the expected quality, such as not being fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is used, that the buyer took reasonable steps to notify the seller within a reasonable time, and that the lack of quality was a substantial factor in causing harm (CACI 1231).
Notice is the step people miss. The buyer must notify the seller within a reasonable time after discovering the breach, or be barred from any remedy (Commercial Code 2607). The commentary quoted under CACI 1243 says the notice need only let the seller know the transaction is still troublesome; it does not have to be a demand for money or a threat of a lawsuit. The same source says a plaintiff does not have to prove notice in an injury suit against a manufacturer or other supplier the plaintiff did not deal with directly, so the notice rule mainly matters for the store that sold to you.
A seller may claim it excluded implied warranties, for example by selling the product "as is" (CACI 1242). That defense applies to the warranty claim. A decision quoted under CACI 1200 says strict liability applies even where the manufacturer has attempted to limit liability.
What changes the answer?
You did not buy the product. A family member, guest or bystander can still bring a strict liability claim; a decision quoted under CACI 1200 says the doctrine may not be restricted by privity of contract and that bystanders should be entitled to greater protection than buyers and users where injury to them is reasonably foreseeable. The warranty claim, by contrast, generally requires that you bought the product from the defendant (CACI 1231).
The seller was mainly providing a service. According to a decision quoted under CACI 1200, strict liability is ordinarily inapplicable where the service aspect predominates and any product sale is incidental, and a hospital is not strictly liable for a defective product supplied during treatment.
The product was rented, not sold. A rental company is judged by whether it used reasonable care to inspect, make the product safe and warn of known dangers (CACI 1224).
The product is an inherently unsafe everyday item. Civil Code 1714.45 bars product claims against a manufacturer or seller where a common consumer product for personal consumption is inherently unsafe and known to be unsafe by ordinary consumers. For tobacco, it exempts retailers and distributors but not the manufacturers.
The danger came from how you used the product. Misuse or modification is a complete defense only when it was so highly extraordinary that it was unforeseeable and was the sole cause of the harm (CACI 1245). The three types of defect, and how each is proven, are covered in our guide on manufacturing defects, design defects and failure to warn.
The company's conduct was willful. Punitive damages require proof of malice, oppression or fraud, and for a company, involvement of an officer, director or managing agent (Civil Code 3294). Whether a store or the manufacturer could face them is a separate question; see punitive damages against a manufacturer.
What could this look like? An example
For example, imagine a Petaluma renter who buys a space heater from a local hardware store. Two weeks later the heater's power cord overheats at the base and starts a fire that burns her hand. The box names a manufacturer abroad and a California distributor. She keeps the heater and the box, and the next week emails the store to say the heater caught fire and burned her.
She can name the store, the distributor and the manufacturer, because each sold or distributed the heater. If the jury finds the heater was defective, each company in that chain can be responsible for her full damages, even if the manufacturer never appears in court. Because she bought the heater from the store and gave prompt notice, she may also add an implied warranty claim against the store. The lawsuit must be filed within two years of the fire. This example is made up to show how the rules fit together; it says nothing about any real case.
What mistakes do people make with a store's liability?
- Returning the product to the store for a refund, which hands away the key evidence.
- Assuming the store is off the hook because it did not make the product.
- Waiting months to tell the seller about the problem, which can bar a warranty claim.
- Suing only a foreign manufacturer that may be hard to serve or collect from.
- Letting the two-year deadline pass while trying to identify the manufacturer, when unknown companies can be named by a fictitious name and added later.
What should I do this week?
- Gather the receipt, order email or card statement that shows where and when you bought the product.
- Photograph the product, its labels and the packaging, including every company name and address printed on them.
- Send the store a short written note saying the product failed and caused an injury, and keep a copy.
- Store the product somewhere safe and do not give it to the store, the maker or an insurer without advice.
- Get medical care and keep the records. Our guide on what to bring to a first meeting with an injury lawyer lists what to collect.
- Check your deadline in our guide to California personal injury deadlines; if the injury appeared later, read when the deadline starts for a product injury that shows up later.
Frequently asked questions
Can I sue the store if I know who made the product?
Yes. The store's liability does not depend on the maker being unknown. The seller and the manufacturer can be named together, and each in the same product's chain remains fully liable for the damages (Directions for Use, CACI 1207B).
Does the store have to have known about the defect?
Not for strict liability. The elements are that the store sold the product, that it was defective, and that the defect was a substantial factor in causing harm (CACI 1201, 1203, 1204 and 1205). Knowledge matters for negligence and for punitive damages.
What if I threw away the receipt?
Other evidence can show where the product came from, such as a card statement, an order history, a loyalty account or a witness. Strict liability requires proof that the defendant sold the product, not a particular document.
What if the seller was a company that installed the product?
Where the service is the main purpose and the product is incidental, strict liability may not apply, according to a decision quoted under CACI 1200. Negligence in installing or inspecting the product can still be claimed (CACI 1220).
Is a component maker in the chain too?
Only in narrower cases: when its component was itself defective, or when it substantially took part in integrating the component into the finished product's design and that integration made the product defective (CACI 1208).
Where would the case be heard?
An injury lawsuit may be filed where the injury happened or where a defendant lives (Code of Civil Procedure 395). For a product injury here, our page on injury cases in Sonoma County describes the local court and agencies.
How is a settlement divided when several companies pay?
Each company's payment goes into one recovery, from which fees, costs and any medical liens are paid. Our guide on what comes out of a personal injury settlement explains that order.
If a product you bought injured you or a family member, contact Young Law Group today at (707) 343-0556 or through our contact page for a free consultation about every company that may be responsible.
Sources
- Judicial Council of California: Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), 2026 edition: instructions 1200 to 1205, 1207A, 1207B, 1208, 1220, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1231, 1242, 1243 and 1245
- Commercial Code section 2314 (implied warranty of merchantability)
- Commercial Code section 2607 (buyer's notice of breach)
- Civil Code section 1714.45 (inherently unsafe common consumer products)
- Civil Code section 3294 (punitive damages)
- Civil Code section 1431.2 (several liability for noneconomic damages)
- Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (two years for an injury or death)
- Code of Civil Procedure section 474 (defendants sued by a fictitious name)
- Code of Civil Procedure section 395 (which county's court)
