Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Peterson v. Superior Court, 899 P.2d 905 (1995)

Citation
Peterson v. Superior Court, 899 P.2d 905 (1995)
Parent Document
Peterson v. Superior Court, 899 P.2d 905 (1995)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1995-08-21

Other Sections in This Document (225)

Full Text

1,004 chars
A landlord or hotel owner, unlike a retailer, often cannot exert pressure upon the manufacturer to make the product safe and cannot share with the manufacturer the costs of insuring the safety of the tenant, because a landlord or hotel owner generally has no “continuing business relationship" with the manufacturer of the defective product. As one commentator has observed: “If the objective of the application of the stream of commerce approach is to distribute the risk of providing a product to society by allowing an injured plaintiff to find a remedy for injury along the chain of distribution, it will probably fail in the landlord/tenant situation. The cost of insuring risk will not be distributed along the chain of commerce but will probably be absorbed by tenants who will pay increased rents. One could argue that this was not the effect sought by the court in earlier cases which anticipated that the cost of risk would be distributed vertically in the stream of commerce.” (Note, Becker v.