CACI No. 2803. Employer’s Defective Product - Essential Factual Elements (Lab. Code, § 3602(b)(3))

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2024 edition)

Download PDF
2803.Employers Defective Product - Essential Factual Elements
(Lab. Code, § 3602(b)(3))
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] was harmed by
a defective product manufactured by [name of defendant]. To establish
this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That the [product] was manufactured by [name of defendant];
2. That the [product] was [sold/leased/transferred for valuable
consideration] to an independent third person;
3. That the third person then provided the [product] for [name of
plaintiff]’s use;
4. That the [product] was defective in design or manufacture;
5. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
6. That the [product] was a substantial factor in causing [name of
plaintiff]’s harm.
New September 2003
Directions for Use
This instruction is intended for use in cases where the employer is the defendant
and the plaintiff alleges that the case falls outside of the workers’ compensation
exclusivity rule. See the Products Liability series (CACI Nos. 1200-1243) for
instructions on product defect.
Sources and Authority
Exclusive Remedy: Defective Product Exception. Labor Code section 3602(b)(3).
“[T]he 1982 amendments were not intended to provide an exhaustive list of
exceptions to the exclusivity rule. They did not, for example, foreclose the
recognition of an exception for injuries stemming from wrongful discharges that
violated public policy, an issue that neither the Legislature nor the judicial
system had confronted in 1982. Section 3602 only applies ‘[w]here the
conditions . . . set forth in section 3600 concur,’ and does not purport to resolve
the ambiguities in that latter section discussed above, nor to definitively delineate
the scope of the compensation bargain that has been the key to construing the
meaning of section 3600. Rather, section 3602 merely confirms the judicial
recognition of certain types of employer acts as outside the compensation
bargain, even as it reinforces the exclusivity rule by repealing the dual capacity
doctrine.” (Fermino v. Fedco, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 701, 720 [30 Cal.Rptr.2d 18,
872 P.2d 559], internal citation omitted.)
“The language ‘provided for the employee’s use’ indicates the product must be
given or furnished to the employee in order for the employee to accomplish
some task.” (Behrens v. Fayette Manufacturing Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1567,
1574 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 264].)
“Our interpretation is in accord with that of commentators who have noted that
the exception of subdivision (b)(3) requires the employee to come into contact
with the defective product as a consumer.” (Behrens, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p.
1574, internal citations omitted.)
Secondary Sources
2 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Workers’ Compensation, § 69
Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 15-F, California
Workers’ Compensation Act Preemption, 15:571 (The Rutter Group)
1 Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Law (6th ed.), Ch. 12, Tort
Actions - Subrogation, § 12.20 (Matthew Bender)
1 California Employment Law, Ch. 20, Liability for Work-Related Injuries,
§ 20.12[1][d] (Matthew Bender)
1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 10, Effect of Workers’ Compensation Law,
§ 10.11[1][e] (Matthew Bender)
51 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 577, Workers’ Compensation,
§ 577.314[4] (Matthew Bender)
23 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 239, Workers’ Compensation Exclusive
Remedy Doctrine (Matthew Bender)

© Judicial Council of California.