When buying a product, consumers want to be sure that it has passed all safety checks and has the necessary precautions to function properly, and safely. In fact, if a consumer buys a product that later causes damage or injury because of a defect, it is the manufacturer/designer/seller that is held liable for the injury, not the consumer for having bought a faulty product. California has set certain laws regarding product liabilities, which clarify the types and elements of such a claim, and potential remedies.
According to the law, liability can be assigned as a result of three different types of defects: design, manufacturing, or warning. In a design defect, the product had to have been designed in such a way that proves dangerous to consumers. However, if there is no problem with the design of the product, but the way in which the product was made is unsafe, this qualifies as a manufacturing defect. Still, if neither the design is faulty nor the manufacturing of the product, but rather the safety warnings failed to prevent injury (or there was a lack of same) then it is considered a warning defect.
In general, the plaintiff (the entity that brings forth the claim) must provide sufficient arguments regarding the following: the product in question is considered a product in the state law, there was a defect (of the aforementioned nature), the defect was in place when the defendant (designer/manufacturer/seller) still had the product, the damage or injury to the plaintiff occurred as a result of the defect.
Furthermore, some cases fall in the category of strict liability, which means that the defendant must not have necessarily acted with negligence or recklessness but is held liable because the product was defective in the first place and caused damage/injury. If the plaintiff proves their case, they can seek redress through damages, which California settles using the pure comparative fault standard and economic loss rule.