[wahern]

Not just in California, but in most of the U.S. and E.U.

But if you weren't yourself negligent, you can recover your losses from an upstream supplier. In practice it's manufacturers or importers who bear most of the insurance cost.

The whole point of the doctrine is that someone injured by a faulty product shouldn't have to hunt down the negligent party, who may have chosen to sell through a byzantine supply chain in order to protect themselves. Similarly, a downstream seller shouldn't be free to benefit from such an arrangement, either. IOW, retailers and other sellers should (and because of strict product liability do) have some responsibility to choose their suppliers wisely.

Note that at least conceptually strict liability lessens the need for centralized product regulation. By making recovery for actual damages more efficient, there's less need for government to try to prevent negligence beforehand. And at least in theory that makes it easier for industry to innovate--to take calculated risks. Alas, the U.S. doesn't embrace this potential as well as it could.

[Dracophoenix]

What counts as a supplier as far as California is considered? If someone sells a non-functional piece of equipment via Ebay, how does that work? Unlike Amazon ,which some argue is closer to a store, Ebay is an open market where you're buying the product as is and not as an SKU. When does caveat emptor become a consideration?

[wahern]

Strict product liability usually only applies to commercial sellers. That doesn't directly answer your question, but suffice it to say there are bodies of law that exist to answer that question. It's certainly not a new question as flea markets, garage sales, charity drives, and many other situations long predate Amazon and eBay.