Find Product Liability Lawyers Near You in Glendale, CA

The cost of hiring a product liability lawyer in California is typically structured as a contingency fee, meaning the attorney receives a percentage of the recovery only if the case is successful. This percentage usually falls between 33 percent and 40 percent, with 33 percent being common for pre-trial settlements and 40 percent for cases that go to trial or appeal. In addition to the fee, clients are responsible for case costs, which can include expert witness fees (often $300 to $800 per hour), engineering analysis (ranging from $5,000 to $50,000 or more), medical record retrieval fees, deposition costs, and court filing fees. Some attorneys advance these costs and deduct them from the final award, while others require periodic payments from the client.

It is important to note that these figures are general estimates and can vary widely based on the complexity of the case, the number of defendants, and the stage at which the case resolves. For example, a straightforward defective household product case may have lower costs, while a multi-defendant pharmaceutical MDL can involve significant expert and administrative expenses. Clients should always request a written fee agreement detailing the percentage, cost responsibilities, and how costs are handled. This information is provided for general educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific guidance on your situation, consult a qualified attorney in Glendale.

Product liability law in Glendale, California, addresses injuries caused by defective consumer goods, industrial equipment, pharmaceuticals, and other products. When a product causes harm due to a flaw in its design, a manufacturing error, a failure to provide adequate warnings, or a breach of an express or implied warranty, the injured party may seek compensation. The legal framework distinguishes between strict liability and negligence. Under strict liability, a plaintiff does not need to prove that the manufacturer acted carelessly; it is enough to show that the product was defective and that the defect caused the injury. Negligence claims, by contrast, require demonstrating that the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, production, or distribution of the product. In Glendale, as in the rest of California, strict liability is the dominant theory for most product defect cases, offering a more straightforward path to recovery for injured consumers.

California law provides a robust statutory and common law foundation for product liability claims. The state has fully adopted the doctrine of strict liability for defective products, as established in landmark cases such as Greenman v. Yuba Power Products. The statute of limitations for filing a product liability lawsuit in California is two years from the date of injury. However, there is also a statute of repose for certain products, which generally bars claims brought more than ten years after the product was first sold, unless the defect caused a latent injury that did not manifest until later. California’s product liability statutes, including Civil Code sections 1714 and 1790-1794, codify the rights of consumers and the obligations of manufacturers and sellers. Additionally, California applies a rule of joint and several liability in product liability cases, meaning that if multiple defendants are found at fault, each can be held responsible for the entire amount of damages, though the plaintiff can only collect once. This rule can significantly affect settlement strategies and the allocation of fault among parties.

Common product liability cases in Glendale involve a wide range of defective products. Defective vehicles are frequent subjects, with recalls issued by manufacturers for issues such as faulty airbags, brake failures, or steering defects that lead to accidents. Dangerous drugs and medical devices, including prescription medications with undisclosed side effects or implants that fail prematurely, often give rise to claims against pharmaceutical companies. Defective household products, such as faulty appliances, power tools, or children’s toys that cause burns, lacerations, or poisoning, are also common. Industrial equipment failures, including malfunctioning machinery in factories or construction sites, can cause severe injuries to workers. Food contamination cases, where products are tainted with pathogens like Salmonella or E. coli, or contain undisclosed allergens, also fall under product liability law. Each of these case types requires careful investigation to identify the specific defect and link it to the injury.

Proving a product liability claim in California requires establishing four key elements: that the product was defective, that the defect existed when the product left the manufacturer’s control, that the defect caused the injury, and that the plaintiff suffered actual damages. Expert testimony is almost always necessary to explain technical aspects of the defect, such as engineering failures, chemical reactions, or medical causation. For example, an engineer might testify about a design flaw in a power tool, while a medical expert might explain how a drug caused a specific injury. Preserving the product as evidence is critical; the item must be stored in its original condition, without alteration, and its chain of custody must be documented to prevent claims of tampering. Recall records from the Consumer Product Safety Commission or the Food and Drug Administration can be powerful evidence, as they show that the manufacturer was aware of the defect. In some cases, internal company documents, such as memos or test results, may also be obtained through discovery to demonstrate that the manufacturer knew of the risk but failed to act.

When hiring a product liability lawyer in Glendale, clients should understand the typical fee structure. Most attorneys work on a contingency fee basis, meaning they receive a percentage of the settlement or verdict only if the case is successful. Contingency fees in product liability cases generally range from 33 percent to 40 percent of the recovery, depending on the complexity of the case and whether it goes to trial. However, case costs can be substantial and are often separate from the attorney’s fee. These costs may include fees for expert witnesses, engineering analysis, medical records retrieval, deposition transcripts, and court filing fees. In complex cases, such as those involving defective medical devices or industrial machinery, expert testing alone can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Some attorneys advance these costs and deduct them from the final recovery, while others require the client to pay them as they arise. It is important to discuss cost arrangements clearly before signing a retainer agreement. Additionally, many product liability cases involving widely distributed defective products are consolidated into multi-district litigation (MDL) in federal court. In an MDL, individual cases are grouped for pretrial proceedings, such as discovery and motions, but each case retains its own identity. This can be more efficient than filing separate lawsuits, but it also means that a single outcome may not bind all plaintiffs. Some cases may be better suited for individual suits, particularly if the injuries are unique or unusually severe.

Class actions and MDL proceedings are two common mechanisms for handling mass product liability claims. In a class action, a group of plaintiffs with similar injuries sues a defendant as a single group. A court must certify the class, meaning it must find that the claims share common issues of law and fact and that a class action is the most efficient way to resolve them. Bellwether trials are sometimes used in MDL cases to test the strength of the claims; a few representative cases are tried to verdict, and the outcomes can guide settlement negotiations for the remaining cases. If a settlement fund is established, plaintiffs who are part of the class or MDL may receive compensation based on a formula, such as the severity of their injury or the type of defect. Plaintiffs have the right to opt out of a class action and pursue their own individual lawsuit, which may allow for a larger recovery if their damages are significant. However, opting out also means bearing the full costs and risks of litigation alone. The pros of joining a class action include lower individual costs, shared resources, and the potential for a recovery without the need for a full trial. The cons include less control over the case, a potentially smaller share of the settlement, and the possibility of being bound by an unfavorable outcome. In Glendale, as elsewhere, the decision to join a class action or pursue an individual claim should be made with careful legal advice based on the specifics of the injury and the product involved.