California
How Barker v. Lull applies in California: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Other.
California follows the consumer expectation test for product defect claims as established in Barker v. Lull, allowing a plaintiff to demonstrate that a product is defectively designed if it fails to meet reasonable consumer safety expectations. This standard can be applied alongside the risk-utility approach, offering flexibility in assessing product liability cases.
In California, to prevail on a design defect claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the product does not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect, or that the risks of the product outweigh its benefits.
Established that the consumer expectation test is applicable primarily in cases where the defect is not obvious to an average consumer.
Clarified the standard for when a failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions constitutes a design defect.
Confirmed that the risk-utility balance is a valid test when special technical knowledge is required to assess the product’s danger.
California's consumer expectation test diverges from the federal standard, which often emphasizes the reasonableness of the manufacturer's conduct and a strict risk-utility analysis. Additionally, California law allows for a greater emphasis on consumer safety expectations, while federal approaches may focus more broadly on industry standards.
Barker v. Lull is relevant for the California bar exam, particularly in subjects related to torts and product liability, as it helps define critical standards and tests for assessing design defects in products.