SANTA ANA DEFECTIVE
PRODUCT ATTORNEY

You may be eligible to recover economic damages (like medical expenses and lost wages), non-economic damages (such as pain and suffering), and in some cases, punitive damages.

In California, the statute of limitations for filing a product liability claim is generally two years from the date of the injury. However, there are exceptions, so it’s advisable to consult with a Santa Ana defective product lawyer as soon as possible.

Evidence may include the defective product itself, medical records proving your injuries, photographs of the injuries or damaged product, receipts or proof of purchase, and any correspondence with the manufacturer or seller.

The CPSC plays a crucial role in product liability cases by ensuring the safety of thousands of consumer products, ranging from children’s toys to off-road recreational vehicles. It works to save lives and keep families safe by reducing the unreasonable risk of injuries and deaths associated with consumer products. While it enforces compliance with mandatory federal safety standards, product liability claims and lawsuits can generate investigations by the government and recalls.

Even if you didn’t use the product exactly as intended, you might still have a claim if the manufacturer could have reasonably foreseen your misuse. However, this can make your case more complex and is another reason why having a Santa Ana defective product attorney can be beneficial.

The most talked about product liability case in the U.S. to date is arguably the Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants case, often referred to as the “McDonald’s coffee case.” This case has been stirring controversy since it was brought forth in 1994.

Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, suffered third-degree burns after hot coffee spilled onto her lap at a McDonald’s drive-through. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment.

Liebeck’s attorneys argued that McDonald’s coffee was too hot (at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit) and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. The jury awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was later reduced to $640,000. The case sparked a national debate over tort reform and continues to be a reference point in discussions about frivolous lawsuits, despite the severe injuries Liebeck sustained.