Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)

Citation
Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)
Parent Document
Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1985-04-29

Other Sections in This Document (238)

Full Text

1,786 chars
The courts have freely applied strict liability in tort law link by link in the marketing chain — "from manufacturer to distributor, to retailer, and so forth." (Kasel v. Remington Arms Co.[, supra,] 24 Cal. App.3d 711, 724 [].) California follows a "stream-of-commerce" approach to strict liability, under which "`... no precise legal relationship to the member of the enterprise causing the defect to be manufactured or to the member most closely connected with the customer is required before the courts will impose strict liability. It is the defendant's participatory connection, for his personal profit or other benefit, with the injury-producing product and with the enterprise that created consumer demand for and reliance upon the product (and not the defendant's legal relationship (such as agency) with the manufacturer or other entities involved in the manufacturing-marketing system) which calls for imposition of strict liability.'" (Tauber-Arons Auctioneers Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 101 Cal. App.3d 268, 275-276, quoting from Kasel v. Remington Arms Co., supra, 24 Cal. App.3d 711, 725.) The strict products liability doctrine extends to all those who are "engaged in the business of distributing goods to the public" as an "integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise" for the product in question. (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 262-263 [37 Cal. Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168]; Tauber-Arons, supra, at pp. 274-275.) Thus, participation in the marketing enterprise by which distribution of the product to the consuming public is effected in more than a "`random and accidental role'" justifies imposition of strict liability. (Tauber-Arons, supra, at p. 277; Garcia v. Halsett (1970) 3 Cal. App.3d 319, 326 [82 Cal. Rptr. 420].)[4]