Product liability lawyer in Los Angeles: Former Insurance Defense Attorneys

Product liability lawyer in Los Angeles from Lederer & Nojima is for people who suffered injuries involving a dangerous product and want the cause investigated, so you can pursue a claim based on a defect rather than lose the evidence needed to evaluate one.

A device may stop working after an injury, but a failure alone does not explain why it failed. An engineer may need to examine the damaged part and compare it with the intended design. Instructions may describe a hazard without addressing the risk that caused the harm. We begin with the product, the incident and the available documents before choosing a liability theory.

Design defects concern the product's design. Manufacturing defects concern a departure from the intended design or specifications in the item that reached the user. A failure-to-warn claim concerns required warnings or instructions about a risk. These categories can overlap, but they require different evidence. Labeling a product dangerous is not a substitute for identifying a defect and connecting it to the injury.

Lederer & Nojima represents injured people from its office at 12100 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 480. David Lederer and John Nojima formerly defended insurers. We use that background to examine arguments about misuse, alterations and alternative causes. A consultation allows us to discuss what happened, what remains available for inspection and whether further technical investigation would answer the legal questions.

A manufacturer may argue that careful quality control proves there was no defect. Strict liability does not always require proof of negligent conduct, so a record of care does not answer every theory. The claimant still must establish the applicable defect and causation requirements. We look for physical evidence and a reasoned technical explanation rather than relying on the severity of the injury to prove a design problem.

Another dispute concerns what caused the loss. The defense may point to an older product, missing instructions or a user's conduct. Our former insurance defense background helps us identify those questions early in the evaluation. We compare the account of use with the product's condition and medical evidence. We do not assume that a warranty expiration ends an injury claim, or that a warranty creates compensation for every injury involving the item.

California permits strict liability claims for qualifying manufacturing defects, design defects and failures to warn. Each theory has its own elements. A manufacturing defect concerns a departure from intended specifications; design claims use standards appropriate to the product and facts. Warning claims examine the relevant risk and warning duties. Negligence may provide another theory when evidence supports it. The California Courts' products liability complaint form identifies both defect and inadequate-warning allegations and requires a causal connection with injury.

California courts generally apply a two-year period to personal injury lawsuits, including many injury claims involving defective products. Discovery issues and other circumstances may change the calculation, so prompt review matters. A manufacturer's claims process or a pending inspection does not by itself protect a lawsuit deadline. Comparative fault may also affect recovery when the evidence supports fault by the injured person. We examine the specific theory and claimed conduct before advising what those rules mean for your case.