California Product Liability and Abuse Lawyer Referrals
HOME › CALIFORNIA PERSONAL INJURY › PRODUCT LIABILITY AND ABUSE
Last updated: April 2026 — Reflects all California product liability and abuse statutes in effect as of January 1, 2026, including the AB 250 revival window, the AB 2777 revival window open through December 31, 2026, and the AB 452 framework eliminating time limits for post-2024 childhood sexual assault claims
Product liability and abuse claims occupy a distinct section of California personal injury law. They are grouped together not because the underlying conduct is similar — a defective medical device and the abuse of a nursing home resident are very different events — but because both categories involve institutional defendants with resources far greater than the injured person, both rely on specialized statutory frameworks beyond ordinary negligence, and both produce some of the highest-value personal injury recoveries in the state.
California product liability law is built on strict liability. Under the doctrine established in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963), a manufacturer is liable for injuries caused by a defective product placed into the stream of commerce, without the injured person needing to prove the manufacturer was negligent.
The plaintiff must prove the product was defective, that the defect existed when the product left the manufacturer's control, and that the defect caused the injury. Strict liability applies to manufacturers, distributors, and retailers throughout the distribution chain.
California's abuse law is built on enhanced remedies. The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA), codified at Welfare and Institutions Code § 15600 et seq., permits recovery of attorney's fees, costs, and punitive damages — and preserves the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering damages in survival actions — when a plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant committed physical abuse, neglect, or abandonment with recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice.
The sexual assault statutes of limitations have been significantly expanded by AB 218, AB 452, AB 2777, and AB 250, with multiple overlapping revival windows currently open for survivors whose claims had otherwise expired.
The 2026 legal landscape is unusually active in the abuse space. Assembly Bill 250, signed by Governor Newsom in October 2025, opened a new two-year revival window running from January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2027 for adult sexual assault survivors whose claims would otherwise be time-barred, provided the claim alleges institutional cover-up.
The AB 2777 revival window — a separate three-year window that opened January 1, 2023 — runs through December 31, 2026 and covers a different set of adult survivor claims. Childhood sexual abuse claims are governed by a completely revised framework under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1, which eliminated time limits entirely for abuse occurring on or after January 1, 2024.
Below is a breakdown of how California product liability and abuse claims work in 2026 — the statutory frameworks for each, the damages available, the overlapping statutes of limitations and revival windows, and what to do if you believe you may have a claim.
California Product Liability
California imposes strict liability on manufacturers, distributors, and retailers for injuries caused by defective products. The plaintiff does not need to prove the defendant was negligent.
The plaintiff must prove the product was defective, the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control, and the defect caused the injury.
Three Types of Product Defect
California law recognizes three distinct types of product defect, each with its own proof framework.
Manufacturing defects occur when a product departs from its intended design — a specific unit rolls off the assembly line with a flaw that other units do not have. The test is whether the defective unit meets the manufacturer's specifications.
Manufacturing defect claims are typically the most straightforward to prove because the deviation from design is objectively measurable.
Design defects occur when the product's design itself is unsafe. California uses a two-prong test established in Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978):
A product has a design defect if either (1) it failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, or (2) the risk of the design outweighs the benefits when the plaintiff establishes the design proximately caused the injury, shifting the burden to the defendant to justify the design.
Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) clarified that the consumer expectation test applies only when ordinary experience allows consumers to form expectations about the product's safety; for complex technical issues, the risk-benefit test controls.
Warning defects occur when a product is unreasonably dangerous because the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions about the product's known or knowable risks.
The test is whether the warning provided was adequate given the seriousness of the foreseeable harm, the frequency of that harm, the ease of providing a better warning, and the intended audience's ability to understand and act on the warning.
The learned intermediary doctrine applies in pharmaceutical and medical device cases — the manufacturer's warning duty runs to the prescribing physician rather than directly to the patient.
Who Can Be Sued
Strict product liability reaches the entire chain of distribution. The manufacturer, component part suppliers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and in some circumstances successors to dissolved manufacturers can all be liable.
The plaintiff does not need to identify which entity in the chain was at fault — the theory is that each party in the distribution chain had the ability to inspect, and the commercial relationship with the product justifies the liability.
Component parts doctrine limits strict liability for component manufacturers when the component was not defective, and the defect arose from how the final manufacturer integrated the component into the finished product.
A supplier of a raw material or generic component typically does not face strict liability for downstream injuries unless the component itself was defective.
Successor liability extends strict liability to companies that acquire a manufacturer through a merger, asset purchase, or similar transaction under the specific circumstances identified in Ray v. Alad Corp. (1977).
Damages in California Product Liability Cases
California imposes no cap on economic or non-economic damages in ordinary product liability cases. The injured person can recover all past and future medical expenses, lost wages, lost earning capacity, pain and suffering, emotional distress, disfigurement, and loss of consortium.
The only cap that may apply is MICRA under Civil Code § 3333.2 when the product claim is combined with a medical malpractice claim against a healthcare provider, but MICRA does not directly limit recovery against the product manufacturer.
Punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 are available when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the manufacturer acted with malice, oppression, or fraud — typically where the manufacturer knew of a serious risk and concealed it, or where cost-benefit analysis documents show the manufacturer accepted foreseeable injuries as a business cost.
Common Product Liability Fact Patterns
Motor vehicle defects (airbag failures, seat belt failures, roof crush, fuel system fires, tire failures, electronic control failures), medical device failures (defective implants, surgical mesh, hip and knee replacements, medical device batteries), pharmaceutical injuries (undisclosed side effects, inadequate warnings, contaminated batches), industrial equipment injuries (unguarded machinery, defective safety devices, failed emergency stops), household product injuries (appliance fires, children's products with strangulation or choking hazards, defective power tools), and construction equipment failures are all recurring categories in California product liability practice.
California Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse
California law provides distinctive protections for elders and dependent adults through the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. The statutory framework allows enhanced remedies — attorney's fees, costs, punitive damages, and survival of pre-death pain and suffering in estate actions — that are not available in ordinary negligence cases.
Who Is Covered
An elder is any person residing in California who is 65 years of age or older, under Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.27. A dependent adult under § 15610.23 is any person between 18 and 64 who has physical or mental limitations that restrict their ability to carry out normal activities or protect their rights. Both categories receive the same statutory protections.
Types of Abuse
EADACPA recognizes multiple distinct forms of abuse, each with its own statutory definition.
Physical abuse under WIC § 15610.63 includes assault, battery, sexual assault, prolonged deprivation of food or water, use of physical restraints for punishment, and administration of medication as a chemical restraint not authorized by a physician for the resident's medical condition.
Neglect under WIC § 15610.57 is the negligent failure of any person with care or custody of an elder or dependent adult to exercise the degree of care a reasonable person would exercise.
Failure to provide food, water, medical care, hygiene, and supervision is the most common form of neglect. Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148 clarified that neglect requires a relationship of care or custody, not merely the rendering of medical services.
Abandonment under WIC § 15610.05 is the desertion or willful forsaking of an elder or dependent adult by a person with care or custody.
Financial abuse under WIC § 15610.30 is the taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining of real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for wrongful use, with intent to defraud, or through undue influence.
Financial abuse is frequently seen in caregiver relationships, predatory lending, fraudulent trust and estate schemes, and exploitation by family members or fiduciaries.
Isolation and abduction are recognized under separate statutory definitions and produce independent causes of action.
Enhanced Remedies Under EADACPA
The defining feature of elder abuse litigation is the enhanced remedies available under Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657. When the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is liable for physical abuse, neglect, or abandonment, and that the defendant was guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in committing the abuse, the court shall award — not may award — reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
Under § 15657(b), the survival limitations of Code of Civil Procedure § 377.34 do not apply, meaning the decedent's pre-death pain, suffering, and disfigurement damages are recoverable by the estate in a survival action even after the 2026 reversion of § 377.34. This makes EADACPA survival actions particularly valuable in catastrophic elder neglect cases where the elder died before trial.
Financial abuse has a parallel but distinct enhanced remedies structure under WIC § 15657.5. Attorney's fees and costs are available upon proof by preponderance of the evidence — a lower burden than the clear and convincing standard for physical abuse — when the defendant is found liable for financial abuse.
Civil Code § 3345 authorizes treble damages against senior citizens and disabled persons in cases involving unfair or deceptive acts or practices. This provision overlaps with financial elder abuse and is frequently invoked in consumer fraud cases targeting seniors.
Common Elder Abuse Fact Patterns
Nursing home neglect (pressure sores, falls, dehydration, medication errors, untreated infections, understaffing), assisted living facility neglect, in-home caregiver abuse (physical injury, financial exploitation, medication misuse), hospital discharge neglect, memory care facility abuse of dementia patients, and financial exploitation by family members, caregivers, trustees, or financial advisors are recurring categories.
The landmark Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23 case established that gross negligence by skilled nursing facilities can support EADACPA enhanced remedies when the conduct meets the recklessness standard.
California Sexual Assault and Childhood Sexual Abuse
California has undergone a complete restructuring of sexual assault and childhood sexual abuse civil limitations over the past several years.
Four major pieces of legislation have dramatically expanded the time frame for filing civil claims: AB 218 (2019), AB 452, AB 2777 (2022), and AB 250 (2025). Two revival windows are currently open in 2026, with different eligibility rules.
Childhood Sexual Abuse Framework — CCP § 340.1
The civil statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse is governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1. The framework depends on when the abuse occurred.
Abuse occurring on or after January 1, 2024, is subject to no statute of limitations under AB 452. A survivor can file a civil claim at any time. Plaintiffs who are 40 or older when filing must submit a certificate of merit from a licensed mental health practitioner confirming that the claim has a reasonable basis.
Abuse occurring before January 1, 2024, is subject to the pre-AB 452 framework — the survivor must file before age 40 OR within five years of discovering the psychological injury caused by the abuse, whichever is later. The earlier AB 218 revival window closed on December 31, 2022, and did not reopen.
Treble damages are available under CCP § 340.1(b)(1) against any person or entity that engaged in a cover-up of prior sexual abuse by the perpetrator. Cover-up is defined broadly to include concealment, document destruction, witness intimidation, and systematic transfer of known offenders without disclosure.
Adult Sexual Assault Framework — CCP § 340.16
Adult sexual assault civil claims are governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 340.16. The standard limitation is the later of ten years from the last act of assault, or three years from the date the survivor discovered or reasonably should have discovered that an injury or illness resulted from the assault.
Two separate revival windows are open in 2026, both of which exclude public entities:
AB 2777 revival window — open from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2026. Revives adult sexual assault claims for assaults that occurred on or after January 1, 2009, that would otherwise be time-barred, provided the survivor alleges that one or more entities responsible for damages engaged in a concerted effort to conceal prior sexual assault allegations.
AB 250 revival window — open from January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2027. Signed by Governor Newsom in October 2025, this new window revives adult sexual assault claims against entities that engaged in cover-up.
The AB 250 definition of cover-up includes nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements that incentivize silence. AB 250 also allows revival of claims against the perpetrators themselves when the cover-up allegations are met.
Survivors whose claims may qualify under both windows should file promptly. The windows are time-limited; they close on fixed dates, and once closed, the claims cannot be revived absent additional legislation.
Common Sexual Assault Institutional Defendants
Religious institutions (diocesan and congregational liability for clergy abuse), schools and universities (teacher and staff abuse, student-on-student abuse, failure to supervise), youth organizations (scouting, athletic programs, community centers), entertainment industry employers (producers, directors, agents, executives), healthcare providers (physicians, therapists, care facility staff), employers in general (supervisors, co-workers, executive conduct), and correctional facilities (staff-on-inmate assault) are recurring categories.
Institutional liability is often the primary source of recovery because individual perpetrators frequently lack assets or coverage.
Statute of Limitations Summary
Product liability claims are subject to a two-year limitation from the date of injury under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. The discovery rule can extend this when the product defect or its connection to the injury was not reasonably discoverable within the standard period.
Elder and dependent adult abuse claims under EADACPA follow the limitations governing the underlying tort — two years for physical injuries under § 335.1, three years for financial abuse under § 338, and the longer limitations for sexual assault claims when applicable. Wrongful death elder abuse claims follow the two-year wrongful death limit.
Childhood sexual abuse (CCP § 340.1) has no limitations period for abuse occurring on or after January 1, 2024; pre-2024 abuse requires filing before age 40 or within five years of discovery.
Adult sexual assault (CCP § 340.16) has a ten-year / three-year discovery framework, with AB 2777 revival open through December 31, 2026, and AB 250 revival open through December 31, 2027, for cover-up cases.
Claims against government entities — public schools, public hospitals, police departments, correctional facilities — require a six-month administrative notice under the Government Claims Act.
Public entities are excluded from the AB 2777 and AB 250 revival windows, which means claims against public entities that became time-barred before the windows opened cannot be revived and should be evaluated promptly against standard limitations.
What to Do If You Have a Potential Claim
Product liability, elder abuse, and sexual assault claims all require early evidence preservation, but the specifics differ by claim type.
For product liability claims, preserve the product in its as-injured condition — do not discard, repair, or modify the defective product.
Retain packaging, instructions, receipts, and proof of purchase. Photograph the product and the injury site. Identify the manufacturer, model number, serial number, and date of manufacture. Medical records documenting the injury and its causal connection to the product are central to the case.
For elder or dependent adult abuse claims, obtain complete medical records, facility records, care plans, staffing records, and incident reports.
Document the elder's condition with photographs and video. Financial abuse cases additionally require bank statements, transaction records, powers of attorney, trust documents, and records of any property transfers.
Retain counsel before confronting the suspected abuser — particularly in financial abuse cases where continued access to the elder's assets can compound the harm.
For sexual assault claims, confidentiality is paramount in the early stages. Survivors should speak with qualified counsel before making statements to investigators, employers, institutions, or insurance representatives.
Medical records, therapy records (with appropriate privilege considerations), communications from the perpetrator, and any records suggesting institutional knowledge of prior conduct are central to the case.
The revival windows are time-limited, and survivors whose claims may fall under AB 2777 or AB 250 should evaluate whether to file before the windows close.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is strict product liability in California?
Under the doctrine established in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963), a manufacturer is strictly liable for injuries caused by a defective product, without proof of negligence. The plaintiff must prove the product was defective (manufacturing defect, design defect, or warning defect), that the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control, and that the defect caused the injury. Strict liability extends to distributors and retailers throughout the chain of distribution.
What does the Elder Abuse Act provide that ordinary negligence does not?
Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657 provides enhanced remedies when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed physical abuse, neglect, or abandonment with recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice. Enhanced remedies include reasonable attorney's fees and costs, punitive damages, and — critically — survival of the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering damages in estate actions, which is otherwise unavailable under post-2026 § 377.34. Financial abuse has a parallel enhanced remedies structure under § 15657.5 with a preponderance-of-evidence burden for attorney's fees.
Is there still time to file a California childhood sexual abuse claim?
Yes, under two different frameworks. For abuse occurring on or after January 1, 2024, CCP § 340.1 imposes no time limit — survivors can file at any time. For abuse occurring before January 1, 2024, survivors can file before age 40 or within five years of discovering the psychological injury, whichever is later. Plaintiffs 40 or older must submit a certificate of merit. Treble damages are available where institutional cover-up is proven.
What are the current sexual assault revival windows in California?
Two revival windows for adult sexual assault claims are currently open. The AB 2777 window runs through December 31, 2026, and revives claims for assaults on or after January 1, 2009, that are otherwise time-barred, provided institutional cover-up is alleged. The AB 250 window opened January 1, 2026 and runs through December 31, 2027; it revives claims against entities engaged in cover-up and, unlike AB 2777, permits revival of claims against the perpetrators themselves when the cover-up requirements are met. Both windows exclude public entities.
Is there a cap on damages in California product liability or abuse cases?
No cap in ordinary product liability cases. No cap in EADACPA elder abuse cases. No cap in sexual assault cases against non-public entities. Medical malpractice cases involving product liability against a healthcare provider may invoke the MICRA non-economic damages cap under Civil Code § 3333.2, which is $470,000 for non-death cases and $650,000 for wrongful death cases as of January 1, 2026.
How long do I have to file a product liability claim in California?
Two years from the date of injury under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. The discovery rule may extend this when the product defect or its connection to the injury was not reasonably discoverable within the standard period. Claims against government entities — for example, for defective products sold or distributed by a public agency — require a six-month administrative notice under the Government Claims Act.
DISCLOSURE This page is published and maintained by 1000Attorneys.com, a California State Bar Certified Lawyer Referral and Information Service, LRIS Certificate No. 0128, accredited by the American Bar Association and established in 2005. The information on this page is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. 1000Attorneys.com is not a law firm and does not provide legal representation. For legal advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified California attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where your claim arises.
Notable Product Liability and Abuse Settlements and Verdicts in California
California has produced some of the largest product liability and institutional abuse recoveries in the nation.
Strict liability, EADACPA enhanced remedies, and the AB 218 / AB 2777 / AB 250 revival windows have combined to drive substantial recoveries against manufacturers, care facilities, and institutions that failed to protect those under their care.
Notable cases include:
-
$4 Billion Settlement: In April 2025, Los Angeles County agreed to pay approximately $4 billion to resolve roughly 11,000 claims of sexual abuse in county juvenile detention centers, probation facilities, and foster care dating back to 1959. Per-survivor payouts were announced in a range between $100,000 and $3 million. The settlement was made possible by AB 218, which extended the civil statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse.
-
$966 Million Verdict (Later Reduced): In October 2025, a Los Angeles jury awarded $966 million — including $950 million in punitive damages — to the family of Mae Moore, an 88-year-old mother of three who died of mesothelioma after decades of use of talc-based baby powder. The court later set aside the punitive portion, reducing the award to $16 million. The verdict is part of the ongoing talc mass tort against Johnson & Johnson.
-
$880 Million Settlement: In 2024, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to resolve 1,353 clergy sexual abuse claims for $880 million — believed to be the largest single child sexual abuse settlement with a Catholic archdiocese at the time it was reached.
-
$116 Million Federal Settlement: In December 2024, the United States agreed to pay approximately $116 million to settle claims by more than 100 women who were sexually abused at the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California. Individual recoveries averaged roughly $1.1 million. The settlement was accompanied by a court-approved consent decree requiring structural reform within the Bureau of Prisons.
-
$38.6 Million Settlement: Reported as the largest Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act settlement in California history, this nursing home abuse and neglect recovery illustrates the scale of EADACPA exposure when enhanced remedies — attorney's fees, punitive damages, and preservation of pre-death pain and suffering — are proven by clear and convincing evidence.
-
$15.5 Million State Enforcement Action: In March 2024, Mariner Health Care agreed to pay $15.5 million to resolve California Attorney General allegations of substandard care across skilled nursing facilities in Los Angeles, Alameda, Marin, and Santa Cruz counties, following reports of physical and sexual abuse of residents.
Why These Results Matter
These recoveries illustrate the three structural features of California product liability and abuse litigation: strict liability makes the chain of distribution accountable for defective products without proof of negligence, the EADACPA enhanced remedies regime makes attorney's fees and punitive damages mandatory when recklessness or malice is proven by clear and convincing evidence, and the combined effect of AB 218, AB 452, AB 2777, and AB 250 has revived and expanded civil standing for sexual assault survivors against the institutions that failed to protect them.
Results in any individual case depend on the specific facts, the quality of evidence, the institutional defendants involved, and whether the claim qualifies for enhanced remedies or a revival window.
Connecting with a vetted California product liability or abuse attorney through 1000Attorneys.com — a State Bar Certified Lawyer Referral and Information Service, LRIS #0128 — ensures the matter is evaluated promptly against the applicable deadlines, including the AB 2777 revival window closing December 31, 2026 and the AB 250 revival window running through December 31, 2027.
