Code Details

Civil Code – CIV
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 – 3273.69] ( Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14. )
PART 3. OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY LAW [1708 – 1725] ( Part 3 enacted 1872. )

Exact Statute Text

(a) In a product liability action, a manufacturer or seller shall not be liable if both of the following apply:

(1) The product is inherently unsafe and the product is known to be unsafe by the ordinary consumer who consumes the product with the ordinary knowledge common to the community.

(2) The product is a common consumer product intended for personal consumption, such as sugar, castor oil, alcohol, and butter, as identified in comment i to Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

(b) This section does not exempt the manufacture or sale of tobacco products by tobacco manufacturers and their successors in interest from product liability actions, but does exempt the sale or distribution of tobacco products by any other person, including, but not limited to, retailers or distributors.

(c) For purposes of this section, the term “product liability action” means any action for injury or death caused by a product, except that the term does not include an action based on a manufacturing defect or breach of an express warranty.

(d) This section is intended to be declarative of and does not alter or amend existing California law, including Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp. (1972), 8 Cal. 3d 121, and shall apply to all product liability actions pending on, or commenced after, January 1, 1988.

(e) This section does not apply to, and never applied to, an action brought by a public entity to recover the value of benefits provided to individuals injured by a tobacco-related illness caused by the tortious conduct of a tobacco company or its successor in interest, including, but not limited to, an action brought pursuant to Section 14124.71 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. In the action brought by a public entity, the fact that the injured individual’s claim against the defendant may be barred by a prior version of this section shall not be a defense. This subdivision does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law relating to tobacco products.

(f) It is the intention of the Legislature in enacting the amendments to subdivisions (a) and (b) of this section adopted at the 1997–98 Regular Session to declare that there exists no statutory bar to tobacco-related personal injury, wrongful death, or other tort claims against tobacco manufacturers and their successors in interest by California smokers or others who have suffered or incurred injuries, damages, or costs arising from the promotion, marketing, sale, or consumption of tobacco products. It is also the intention of the Legislature to clarify that those claims that were or are brought shall be determined on their merits, without the imposition of any claim of statutory bar or categorical defense.

(g) This section shall not be construed to grant immunity to a tobacco industry research organization.

(Amended by Stats. 1998, Ch. 485, Sec. 38. Effective January 1, 1999.)

Civil Code § 1714.45 Summary

California Civil Code § 1714.45 establishes a limited form of product liability immunity for manufacturers and sellers of certain common consumer products. Specifically, a manufacturer or seller is generally not liable if the product is inherently unsafe, its unsafeness is commonly known by the ordinary consumer, and it’s a common consumer product intended for personal consumption (like sugar or alcohol).

However, the statute contains crucial exceptions, particularly concerning tobacco products. While it *does not* grant immunity to tobacco manufacturers and their successors in interest for product liability actions, it *does* provide immunity to other parties in the distribution chain, such as retailers or distributors, for the sale or distribution of tobacco products.

The law also clarifies that a “product liability action” includes injury or death caused by a product, but excludes claims based on a manufacturing defect or a breach of an express warranty. Furthermore, it explicitly states that this section does not apply to actions brought by public entities seeking to recover benefits provided to individuals injured by tobacco-related illnesses, and a prior bar to an individual’s claim is not a defense in such public entity actions. The Legislature’s intent, particularly through 1998 amendments, was to ensure that there is no statutory bar to personal injury, wrongful death, or other tort claims against tobacco manufacturers by individuals. It also denies immunity to tobacco industry research organizations.

Purpose of Civil Code § 1714.45

Civil Code § 1714.45 serves a dual purpose in California product liability law. Initially, the statute aimed to codify the “common knowledge” defense, providing immunity to manufacturers and sellers of certain inherently unsafe, yet common, consumer products. The legislative intent was to prevent litigation over products like sugar or alcohol, where the dangers are widely understood by the general public, thus streamlining the legal process and discouraging frivolous lawsuits against makers of everyday items.

However, the most significant legislative purpose behind the statute, particularly after the 1998 amendments, was to unequivocally clarify and reinforce the ability of individuals and public entities to pursue legal claims against tobacco manufacturers. For a period, earlier versions of the statute were interpreted to grant immunity to tobacco companies. The 1998 amendments, specified in subdivision (f), were a direct response to this, declaring the Legislature’s intent that *no* statutory bar exists for personal injury, wrongful death, or other tort claims against tobacco manufacturers and their successors in interest. This amendment was crucial in enabling victims of tobacco-related illnesses to seek justice and hold tobacco companies accountable for their actions, effectively removing a substantial legal hurdle for plaintiffs in California’s extensive tobacco litigation.

Real-World Example of Civil Code § 1714.45

Imagine Sarah, a lifelong smoker, develops lung cancer and wishes to sue the company that manufactured the cigarettes she consumed. Under Civil Code § 1714.45, Sarah would *not* be barred from bringing a product liability lawsuit against the tobacco *manufacturer*. This is because subdivision (b) explicitly states that the section “does not exempt the manufacture or sale of tobacco products by tobacco manufacturers and their successors in interest from product liability actions.” Her claim would be determined on its merits, without the manufacturer being able to claim statutory immunity under this section.

Conversely, if Sarah were to try and sue the local convenience store (a retailer) where she purchased her cigarettes, that store *would* likely be immune from her product liability claim under the same subdivision (b), which *does* exempt “the sale or distribution of tobacco products by any other person, including, but not limited to, retailers or distributors.”

In another scenario, if John suffers health issues due to excessive sugar consumption and tries to sue a sugar manufacturer, that manufacturer *might* be able to claim immunity under subdivision (a). They would argue that sugar is an “inherently unsafe” common consumer product, and its unsafeness (e.g., contributing to diabetes if consumed excessively) is “known to be unsafe by the ordinary consumer.”

Related Statutes

• Welfare and Institutions Code § 14124.71: This section is explicitly referenced in Civil Code § 1714.45(e). It pertains to the state’s ability to recover the costs of Medi-Cal services provided to beneficiaries due to the tortious conduct of third parties, including tobacco companies. Civil Code § 1714.45 clarifies that the general immunity provisions do not apply to such actions brought by public entities.
• Civil Code § 1714: This is the foundational statute in California establishing general liability for negligent or willful acts. While broader, Civil Code § 1714.45 provides a specific carve-out or limitation on liability within the product liability context, which is a specific type of tort falling under general liability principles.
• Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 402A: This influential legal treatise, specifically comment i, is directly referenced in Civil Code § 1714.45(a)(2). Section 402A outlines the principles of strict product liability for defective products and comment i discusses the “common knowledge” defense for certain products, which the California statute initially sought to codify.

Case Law Interpreting Civil Code § 1714.45

Civil Code § 1714.45, particularly its amendments concerning tobacco, has been the subject of significant judicial interpretation:

• Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 828: This landmark California Supreme Court case addressed the retroactivity of the 1998 amendments to Civil Code § 1714.45. The Court held that the amendments, which clarified that tobacco manufacturers are not immune from product liability actions, apply retroactively to cases pending on January 1, 1999. This decision was pivotal in allowing many previously barred tobacco-related personal injury claims to proceed.
• Naegele v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 856: A companion case to *Myers*, also decided by the California Supreme Court on the same day. This case reaffirmed the retroactive application of the 1998 amendments to Civil Code § 1714.45, further solidifying the legal landscape for plaintiffs pursuing product liability claims against tobacco manufacturers in California.
• In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 289: While primarily focused on class action certification and Proposition 64, this California Supreme Court case extensively discussed the intent and impact of the 1998 amendments to Civil Code § 1714.45, reiterating that the Legislature clearly intended to remove any statutory bar to claims against tobacco manufacturers.
• Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp. (1972) 8 Cal. 3d 121: This case is explicitly referenced in Civil Code § 1714.45(d). While predating the specific statute, *Cronin* is a foundational case in California product liability law, establishing key principles regarding strict liability for design defects. The statute’s reference to *Cronin* signifies that its general provisions are intended to be declarative of, and not to alter or amend, existing California common law principles, even while creating specific exceptions.

Why Civil Code § 1714.45 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Civil Code § 1714.45 holds immense significance in California personal injury litigation, particularly for cases involving product liability. For plaintiffs and their attorneys, it clearly delineates who can and cannot be held liable for injuries caused by certain products.

For Plaintiffs:
The most critical aspect for plaintiffs is the explicit removal of statutory immunity for tobacco manufacturers. Before the 1998 amendments, this statute posed a significant hurdle, potentially barring claims from individuals suffering from tobacco-related illnesses. Now, the statute guarantees that California smokers and others injured by tobacco products can pursue personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort claims against tobacco manufacturers on their merits. This empowers victims to seek compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages without facing a categorical statutory defense from manufacturers. It means a plaintiff’s attorney can confidently pursue a claim against a tobacco giant, knowing that this specific law will not be used to dismiss the case.

For Defense Attorneys:
While tobacco manufacturers cannot use this statute for immunity, other defendants can. Defense attorneys representing retailers or distributors of tobacco products, or manufacturers/sellers of other “inherently unsafe” but “common consumer products” (like alcohol or sugar), can utilize subdivision (a) and the latter part of subdivision (b) to argue for immunity. They would need to demonstrate that the product’s unsafeness is commonly known by the ordinary consumer. This distinction requires careful analysis of the defendant’s role in the product’s supply chain and the common knowledge surrounding the product’s risks.

Overall Relevance:
Civil Code § 1714.45 shapes litigation strategy by clearly defining the scope of product liability and potential defenses. It underscores the Legislature’s intent to hold large corporations, particularly tobacco manufacturers, accountable for the harms caused by their products, while simultaneously providing a limited common-knowledge defense for other common consumer goods. Understanding this statute is essential for any California personal injury lawyer navigating product liability claims, as it directly impacts the viability of lawsuits and the types of defendants that can be targeted.