Opinion ID: 1190081
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Plaintiffs are entitled to recover as a matter of law on the cause of action based upon strict liability.

Text: Plaintiff's final cause of action is based upon the doctrine of strict liability. They claim that the Gizmo is defectively designed, a fact which, if proven, renders defendants strictly liable in tort for Fred's injuries. [20] (15) As our recent decisions indicate, to prevail on this theory plaintiffs need only prove that the product is defective, and need not show that the user was unaware of the defect. ( Luque v. McLean (1972) 8 Cal.3d 136, 139 [104 Cal. Rptr. 443, 501 P.2d 1163].) As we stated in Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 121, 134 [104 Cal. Rptr. 433, 501 P.2d 1153]: Although the seller should not be responsible for all injuries involving the use of its products, it should be liable for all injuries proximately caused by any of its products which are adjudged `defective.' (16) In the instant case the trial court ruled that the Gizmo was defectively designed as a matter of law, a conclusion which is firmly supported by the record. At trial, plaintiffs demonstrated how a person using the Gizmo under normal conditions is likely to injure himself by entangling his club in the cord attached to the ball, a significant danger not inherent in the game of golf. The evidence further shows that the risk of harm built into the Gizmo is greatest when the product is being used by its intended user, a player of limited ability. Defendants introduced no evidence whatsoever to rebut this showing. On this state of the record, the court properly found that the Gizmo was defectively designed as a matter of law, and that the defect was the proximate cause of the injuries in question.