Thanks to our increasingly global economy, most Californians probably own dozens - if not hundreds - of products that were neither manufactured in the United States nor developed by an American-based company.
Although some might argue that this globalization has a lot of benefits, it can have extremely negative effects if someone is injured in a product-related accident and seeks to bring a California defective product lawsuit.
One such case was finally resolved by the California Court of Appeal last month, after spending years tied up in litigation.
Products Liability Defendants Must Have Ties to California
Back in 2008, eight California residents were injured when a Sea-Doo personal watercraft exploded on the California side of Lake Havasu. A later investigation revealed that the explosion was caused by a defect in the watercraft's gas tank.
The injured parties brought a products liability action against Dow Chemical Canada ULC - the successor company to the fuel tank's manufacturer.
As a Canadian company, Dow objected to being sued in California court and moved to have the case dismissed. After years of litigation - reaching as high as the Supreme Court of the United States - it finally succeeded.
A fundamental rule of American law is that courts must be able to exercise "personal jurisdiction" over the defendant. Although this is a very complicated issue, it essentially means that the defendant has to have at least "minimum contacts" with the state in which it is being sued.
Dow argued that personal jurisdiction did not exist in this case because the company never had an office in California, never sold products to customers in California and never advertised any products in California.
The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that Dow should have reasonably anticipated that its component products would end up being used and sold in the state. Although the gas tanks were manufactured in Canada and sold to a Canadian watercraft manufacturer, Dow should have understood that the end product would be sold to California residents.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal ruled that it was not sufficient for a defendant to simply have a theoretical understanding that its product might eventually end up in California someday. Rather, it must take some sort of affirmative action that signals the company's intent to be involved in the California market.
California Defective Products Victims Need Experienced Help
The court's ruling doesn't necessarily mean the explosion victims will be without remedy, although it certainly does mean that it will be much harder for them to seek compensation for their injuries.
However, the case does illustrate just one of the many very complex issues that can arise in products liability lawsuits. Because products liability cases are so complicated, it is important for potential litigants to choose an experienced and well-qualified attorney to handle their case.
If you have been injured by a dangerous or defective product, contact a California products liability lawyer who can help you seek justice.
