Not every car crash is caused by a careless driver. Sometimes the vehicle itself fails: airbags that don't deploy, brakes that fade, tires that delaminate at freeway speed on the I-5. When a defective product causes or worsens a collision, California law lets victims pursue the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer — often alongside any negligent driver. An auto accident attorney who handles product liability claims knows how to run both theories at once, and in Los Angeles County, where high-speed freeway crashes magnify the consequences of any defect, that dual-track approach frequently makes the difference between a minimum-limits settlement and full compensation.
Product Liability in California Auto Accidents: The Basics
California recognizes strict product liability: a victim need not prove the manufacturer was careless, only that the product was defective and the defect caused injury. Defects come in three flavors — manufacturing defects (a one-off flaw in your specific part), design defects (an entire product line is unreasonably dangerous), and warning defects (inadequate instructions or safety warnings). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) maintains recall and complaint databases that attorneys mine early, because a documented pattern of failures transforms a single-vehicle mystery into a provable defect case.
Preserving the vehicle is critical. If your car is scrapped after a crash in Long Beach or Burbank, the best evidence of the defect goes with it. Experienced counsel sends preservation letters immediately, retains the wreck, and brings in mechanical and biomechanical experts before insurers or salvage yards destroy the proof.
How an Auto Accident Attorney Builds the Claim
Investigation: From the CHP 555 Report to the Engineering Lab
The paper trail starts with the official collision report — the California Highway Patrol's CHP 555 for freeway incidents, or an LAPD report for surface streets in downtown Los Angeles. From there, the work turns technical: downloading event data recorder information, tearing down the failed component, and comparing it against manufacturing specifications. In serious injury cases involving a traumatic brain injury (TBI) or spinal cord injuries, medical experts connect the defect to the harm — for example, showing that a non-deploying airbag turned a survivable crash on SR-134 into a catastrophic one.
Multiple Defendants, Shared Fault
Product cases rarely involve the manufacturer alone. A distracted or impaired driver may have triggered the crash even if a defect worsened the injuries. California's pure comparative negligence rule, adopted in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California (1975), lets a jury apportion fault among every responsible party — and lets a partially at-fault victim still recover the remainder of their damages. Where a driver broke a safety statute, Evidence Code § 669's negligence per se presumption applies, and where impairment was involved, a conviction under Vehicle Code § 23152 or § 23153 (DUI causing injury, chargeable as a felony) becomes potent civil evidence.
When a Defect Case Collides With a DUI Case
A surprising number of serious collisions involve both an impaired driver and a vehicle or component failure — and the two legal tracks inform each other. While the injury attorney develops the civil case, the driver faces criminal prosecution and a 10-day deadline to request a DMV Administrative Per Se hearing, typically with a DUI defense attorney in Los Angeles handling both the courtroom and the license fight. Plaintiff's counsel pays attention to that parallel case for a simple reason: both sides work from the same CHP collision reports, chemical blood and breath test results, and blood alcohol concentration (BAC) evidence, and how the defense attacks that record previews the arguments the civil insurer will borrow later. If the criminal case ends in conviction, the civil claim gains negligence per se leverage — and, under Civil Code § 3294 and Taylor v. Superior Court (1979), a possible punitive damages claim against the drunk driver that no defect defense can dilute.
Compensation: What a Product Liability Claim Can Recover
Damages in these cases divide into economic losses — medical bills, future care, lost earnings, property damage — and non-economic damages for pain, suffering, and diminished quality of life. Coverage strategy matters as much as liability: the at-fault driver's policy (California minimums are now $30,000/$60,000/$15,000 under Senate Bill 1107, effective January 1, 2025), the manufacturer's commercial insurance, the victim's own uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage, and MedPay benefits can all contribute. Note that Proposition 213 generally bars uninsured drivers from non-economic damages against a negligent driver — but that restriction does not defeat a product liability claim against a manufacturer, another reason the defect theory can be decisive.
Deadlines are unforgiving. Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 gives injury victims two years to sue, and the clock on preserving physical evidence is far shorter as a practical matter. Cases that go the distance are tried where the defendant does business or the crash occurred — for many Los Angeles County claims, at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse downtown.
Choosing the Right Attorney for a Defect Case
Product liability work is expert-heavy and expensive to prosecute; manufacturers defend design decisions aggressively. Look for counsel with the resources to fund engineering analysis, a record of litigating against automakers or component suppliers, and the trial credibility to make a Los Angeles County jury verdict a real threat rather than a bluff. Most reputable firms handle these cases on contingency, so the manufacturer's litigation budget doesn't decide who gets justice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue a car manufacturer even if another driver caused the crash in Los Angeles?
Yes. Under California's comparative fault system from Li v. Yellow Cab Co., a jury can apportion responsibility between a negligent driver and a manufacturer whose defective component caused or aggravated your injuries. Each defendant pays its share of the damages.
How long do I have to file a product liability claim after a California auto accident?
Two years from the date of injury under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, the same statute of limitations that governs personal injury and wrongful death claims. Preserve the vehicle immediately — the defect evidence is often more time-sensitive than the filing deadline.
What if the at-fault driver was drunk and my airbag also failed?
You may have claims against both. The driver's DUI conviction under Vehicle Code § 23152 or § 23153 supports negligence per se and potentially punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294, while the airbag failure supports a strict liability claim against the manufacturer — expanding the insurance coverage available to pay your damages.