(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.
Notes of Decisions
Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 50 P.3d 751 (Cal. 2002).
· cites it 4× “On May 25, 1999, the district court granted the motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, on the ground that Cal. Civ.Code § 1714.45 barred Myers's actions for any injuries incurred prior to January 1998.”
Grisham v. Philip Morris, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
· cites it 9× “In defining “common consumer product intended for personal consumption,” the statute references Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A (comment i).”
Boeken v. Philip Morris Inc., 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 638 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “” 19 In Myers , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had certified the following question to the California Supreme Court: “ ‘Do the amendments to Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.45 that became effective on January 1, 1998, apply to a claim that accrued after January 1, 1998, but which is…”
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Philip Morris, Inc., 957 F. Supp. 1130 (N.D. Cal. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Defendants also con *1140 tend that all of plaintiffs’ state law causes of action are barred by Cal. Civ.Code § 1714.45. The Court will now examine defendants’ contentions in the context of each of plaintiffs’ state law causes of action.”
PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
· cites it 3× “This contention is based on California Civil Code § 1714.45, which does indeed preclude products liability actions brought by consumers who know that a product is inherently unsafe, see id.”
Conley v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 286 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
· cites it 3× “In light of their immunity for conduct occurring during this period, defendants assert that plaintiffs have not offered sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that their products proximately caused the decedent’s death.”
Major v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 563 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017).
“" ( Civ. Code, § 1714.45, subd. (f).) "Therefore, with respect to conduct falling outside the 10-year immunity period, the tobacco companies are not shielded from product liability lawsuits.”
McKinney v. California Portland Cement Co., 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2490 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
“16 Civil Code section 1714.45, as amended, provides: “(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…”
Am. Tobacco Co. v. Superior Court, 208 Cal. App. 3d 480 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).
“) 6 In their petition for rehearing filed with this court, plaintiffs assert for the first time that they were improperly denied an opportunity to amend their complaints to allege that (1) Civil Code section 1714.45 was not passed in the manner required by the state…”
Souders v. Philip Morris Inc., 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11788 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
“In Myers the Supreme Court considered the following question, certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, “Do the amendments to Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.45 that became effective on January 1, 1998, apply to a claim that accrued after January 1,…”
Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966 (5th Cir. 2002).
“In 1987, it enacted an immunity statute that shielded manufacturers and sellers of tobacco products from liability for the commonly known risks of smoking.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1714.45(a) — 3 cases
Grisham v. Philip Morris, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
“In defining “common consumer product intended for personal consumption,” the statute references Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A (comment i).”
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Philip Morris, Inc., 957 F. Supp. 1130 (N.D. Cal. 1997).
“Defendants also con *1140 tend that all of plaintiffs’ state law causes of action are barred by Cal. Civ.Code § 1714.45. The Court will now examine defendants’ contentions in the context of each of plaintiffs’ state law causes of action.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1714.45(b) — 2 cases
Grisham v. Philip Morris, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
“In defining “common consumer product intended for personal consumption,” the statute references Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A (comment i).”
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Philip Morris, Inc., 957 F. Supp. 1130 (N.D. Cal. 1997).
“Defendants also con *1140 tend that all of plaintiffs’ state law causes of action are barred by Cal. Civ.Code § 1714.45. The Court will now examine defendants’ contentions in the context of each of plaintiffs’ state law causes of action.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1714.45(d) — 1 case
Grisham v. Philip Morris, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
“In defining “common consumer product intended for personal consumption,” the statute references Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A (comment i).”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1714.45(e) — 1 case
PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
“This contention is based on California Civil Code § 1714.45, which does indeed preclude products liability actions brought by consumers who know that a product is inherently unsafe, see id.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1714.45(f) — 2 cases
Grisham v. Philip Morris, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
“In defining “common consumer product intended for personal consumption,” the statute references Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A (comment i).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.