MESOTHELIOMA | 2026-10-08

The Consumer Expectations Test for Asbestos Products in California: How Sparks v. Owens-Illinois Lets a Jury Find a Design Defect Without an Expert Debate

California gives injured plaintiffs two ways to prove a product was defectively designed. For dangerous asbestos products, the consumer expectations test asks a common-sense question — did the product perform as safely as an ordinary user would expect? — and Sparks v. Owens-Illinois confirmed it applies to asbestos insulation.

Proving that an asbestos product was defectively designed does not always require a battle of engineering experts. California product-liability law offers two distinct tests for design defect, and for many dangerous asbestos products the more powerful one for plaintiffs is the consumer expectations

California has one of the most developed bodies of product-liability law in the country, and at its center is the concept of design defect. A product can injure someone even when it is manufactured exactly as intended, because the design itself is dangerous. For asbestos products — insulation, cement, gaskets, and the like — the design-defect question is often the heart of the case, and the test the law applies to that question can determine how the case is tried and won.

Two Tests for Design Defect

The framework comes from decades of California Supreme Court precedent, synthesized in Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994). Under Soule, a plaintiff may prove a design defect in either of two ways:

• The consumer expectations test: the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.
• The risk-benefit test: the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risks inherent in that design, considering factors such as the gravity of the danger, the likelihood of harm, the feasibility of a safer alternative design, and the cost and consequences of that alternative.

These tests are alternatives, not cumulative requirements. A plaintiff need satisfy only one. The consumer expectations test is a plaintiff’s preferred route where it applies, because it does not require the plaintiff to prove a feasible alternative design or to win a technical risk-benefit debate — it asks what ordinary users legitimately expected about safety.

When the Consumer Expectations Test Is Available

Soule placed an important limit on the consumer expectations test: it applies only where the everyday experience of the product’s users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions. In other words, the test fits products whose dangers are within the common understanding of ordinary users, not products whose design involves technical questions beyond that everyday experience. For a complex component whose safe design turns on engineering trade-offs an ordinary person could not assess, the risk-benefit test is the appropriate route. For a product whose danger is a matter of common understanding, the consumer expectations test applies.

The distinction matters because defendants routinely argue that a given product is too technical for the consumer expectations test and that the plaintiff must instead shoulder the risk-benefit burden. Whether the test is available is frequently litigated, and the answer depends on the specific product and the nature of the danger.

Sparks v. Owens-Illinois: Asbestos Insulation and Ordinary Expectations

The key decision applying the consumer expectations test to asbestos is Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., reported at 32 Cal.App.4th 461 (1995). The case involved Kaylo, an asbestos-containing thermal insulation product that Owens-Illinois manufactured in the late 1940s and 1950s and that was used in industrial and shipboard settings. The plaintiff developed mesothelioma from exposure to the product. At trial, the court instructed the jury to apply the consumer expectations test to decide whether Kaylo was defectively designed, and the jury found the product defective and held the manufacturer responsible.

The Court of Appeal affirmed. It concluded that the consumer expectations test was properly applied to the asbestos insulation, because an ordinary user of such a product would not expect it to expose him to a deadly, invisible carcinogen in the course of ordinary use. The danger — that working with the insulation would release fibers that could cause fatal disease — was precisely the kind of safety failure an ordinary user would not anticipate. Later courts, including in Morton v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, relied on Sparks and Soule in applying the consumer expectations test to other asbestos insulation products.

Why the Consumer Expectations Test Helps Asbestos Plaintiffs

The practical advantage is significant. Under the risk-benefit test, the analysis can devolve into a technical contest over whether a safer alternative design was feasible and whether its benefits justified its costs — terrain where manufacturers deploy expert witnesses and complex engineering arguments. The consumer expectations test reframes the question around a proposition that is intuitively powerful to a jury: no one expects that handling insulation, or working near it, will give them a fatal cancer decades later. When the test applies, it lets the jury measure the product against the safety an ordinary user was entitled to expect, rather than against a manufacturer’s cost-benefit calculus.

This does not mean the test is automatic or that causation is presumed. The plaintiff must still prove exposure to the defendant’s product and that the exposure was a substantial factor contributing to the risk of disease — the causation standard we examine in our article on Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois and substantial-factor causation. The consumer expectations test addresses the defect element; Rutherford addresses causation. A complete case must satisfy both.

Design Defect Alongside Failure to Warn

Design defect is one of several product-liability theories available in asbestos cases, and it frequently travels with a failure-to-warn claim. A manufacturer may be liable not only because the product’s design was unsafe but because it failed to warn users of a known or knowable danger of which they were unaware. The two theories are distinct: design defect focuses on the product’s safety as designed, while failure to warn focuses on the adequacy of the information the manufacturer provided. In asbestos litigation, plaintiffs commonly plead both, because the manufacturers often both designed a dangerous product and failed to warn of the hazard they knew their product posed.

The Defenses Manufacturers Raise

Asbestos defendants have developed a set of recurring defenses that interact with the design-defect analysis. They argue that the consumer expectations test should not apply because the product is too technical; they invoke the sophisticated-user and sophisticated-intermediary doctrines to shift the duty to warn onto knowledgeable employers; and, following O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012), they argue that a manufacturer is not liable for asbestos in replacement parts or adjacent products made by others. None of these defenses defeats a properly supported consumer-expectations design-defect claim about the defendant’s own product, but each must be anticipated and met. A plaintiff’s case is strongest when it ties the disease to the defendant’s own asbestos-containing product used as intended.

What This Means for California Asbestos Victims

For a California family confronting an asbestos diagnosis, the availability of the consumer expectations test can simplify and strengthen the design-defect portion of a case. Rather than being forced into a technical risk-benefit contest, the plaintiff may be able to put to the jury the straightforward truth that no ordinary user expected a building or industrial product to carry a lethal, hidden cancer risk. Whether the test applies depends on the specific product, so an early, careful assessment of each defendant’s product and the way the plaintiff encountered it is essential — and because these cases move quickly, that assessment should begin as soon as possible after diagnosis.

The Strict-Liability Foundation

Design-defect law in California rests on the doctrine of strict product liability, which the California Supreme Court pioneered. In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963), the Court held that a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when a product it places on the market, knowing it will be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury. The Court later refined the design-defect analysis in Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978), which articulated the two-pronged framework — consumer expectations and risk-benefit — that Soule v. General Motors later clarified. The policy behind strict liability is that manufacturers, not injured users, are best positioned to bear and spread the cost of defects, and that requiring proof of negligence would leave many legitimately injured consumers without a remedy.

For asbestos plaintiffs, the strict-liability foundation is significant: the claim does not require proving that the manufacturer was careless, only that the product was defective and caused harm. The consumer expectations test operationalizes that principle by measuring the product against what an ordinary user legitimately expected, not against the manufacturer’s conduct.

The "Ordinary Consumer" in an Industrial Setting

A recurring question in asbestos cases is who counts as the "ordinary consumer" whose expectations set the standard, given that many asbestos products were used by workers in industrial and shipboard settings rather than by retail purchasers. California courts have recognized that the relevant consumer can include the workers who used or were exposed to the product in the ordinary course of their work. Those users — insulators, shipyard workers, tradespeople — had their own legitimate expectations about safety, and the law measures the product against what such a user would reasonably expect. An ordinary worker handling insulation would not expect it to release invisible fibers capable of causing fatal cancer decades later. Framing the ordinary consumer correctly, in light of how the product was actually used, is an important part of establishing that the consumer expectations test applies.

Punitive Damages and the Manufacturers’ State of Knowledge

Asbestos litigation has long featured evidence about what manufacturers knew, and when, about the dangers of their products. Where the evidence shows that a manufacturer knew its asbestos products were hazardous and continued to sell them without adequate warning in conscious disregard of the risk, California Civil Code § 3294 can support an award of punitive damages, proven by clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice. Punitive damages are not available in every case and require a heightened showing, but the historical record in asbestos litigation has supported such awards where the proof established a manufacturer’s knowing disregard for user safety. This dimension of the case depends on documentary and historical evidence of the manufacturer’s knowledge, which experienced asbestos counsel develop through the extensive record that exists about these products.

Deadlines: The Asbestos Statute of Limitations

Asbestos claims are governed by a specialized limitations statute. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.2, the limitations period for an asbestos-related injury claim is generally tied to the point at which the plaintiff suffered disability from the asbestos-related illness and knew or should have known that the disability was caused by that exposure. The rule accounts for the long latency of asbestos diseases, which can appear decades after exposure, and the separate accrual rules that apply to wrongful-death claims brought by survivors. Because the timing rules are specific to asbestos and interact with the diagnosis and, in wrongful-death cases, the date of death, it is essential to get prompt legal advice after a diagnosis so that deadlines are correctly identified and preserved.

Who Can Be Held Responsible

A design-defect claim can reach the full chain of commercial actors who placed a defective asbestos product into the stream of commerce, not just the original manufacturer. Under California strict-liability principles, manufacturers, distributors, and certain suppliers that participated in marketing the defective product may be held responsible, because strict liability is imposed on those who profit from putting the product into commerce and are positioned to bear and spread the cost of its defects. In asbestos litigation, this often means multiple defendants — the maker of the insulation, the companies that distributed it, and others in the supply chain — each of whose defective product the plaintiff encountered. Identifying every responsible entity is a core part of building the case, because asbestos diseases typically result from exposure to many products over a working life, and because some defendants may be insolvent or in bankruptcy while others remain able to respond. The consumer expectations test applies to each defendant’s own product, measured against what an ordinary user of that product would reasonably have expected.

Practically, this means an asbestos case is rarely a dispute with a single company. It is an investigation into a working life — the sites where the plaintiff worked, the products present at each, and the manufacturers and suppliers behind them — followed by claims against each responsible party whose defective product contributed to the exposure. The breadth of potential defendants is one reason thorough product identification, discussed alongside the causation standard in our related articles, is so central to maximizing an injured family’s recovery.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the consumer expectations test?

It is one of California’s two tests for a design defect. A product is defective if it failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way. It does not require proving a feasible alternative design.

How is it different from the risk-benefit test?

The risk-benefit test asks whether the benefits of the design outweigh its risks, considering factors like the feasibility and cost of a safer alternative design. The consumer expectations test instead asks what safety an ordinary user was entitled to expect. A plaintiff needs to satisfy only one of the two tests.

Does the consumer expectations test apply to asbestos products?

Yes, where appropriate. In Sparks v. Owens-Illinois (1995), a California Court of Appeal upheld applying the consumer expectations test to asbestos insulation, because an ordinary user would not expect the product to expose them to a deadly carcinogen in ordinary use.

Why do plaintiffs prefer the consumer expectations test?

Because it avoids a technical engineering contest. It lets the jury measure the product against ordinary safety expectations — a proposition juries find intuitive in asbestos cases — rather than against the manufacturer’s cost-benefit analysis, and it does not require proving an alternative design.

Does the test apply to every product?

No. Under Soule v. General Motors, the consumer expectations test applies only where ordinary users’ everyday experience lets them form a legitimate safety expectation about the product. For designs involving technical trade-offs beyond common experience, the risk-benefit test applies instead. Whether the test applies to a given product is often litigated.

Do I still have to prove the asbestos caused my disease?

Yes. Design defect addresses whether the product was unsafe; you must separately prove exposure to the defendant’s product and that it was a substantial factor contributing to your risk of developing the disease, under the Rutherford causation standard.

Can I bring a failure-to-warn claim too?

Usually yes. Design defect and failure to warn are distinct theories, and asbestos plaintiffs commonly plead both — that the product was dangerously designed and that the manufacturer failed to warn of a known or knowable hazard.

How quickly should I act after a diagnosis?

As soon as possible. Mesothelioma is aggressive, your own testimony is often the most valuable evidence, and California allows expedited trial preference for seriously ill plaintiffs. Deadlines also apply. Trembach Law Firm can evaluate your case promptly. Call (213) 645-2246.

Talk to a California Asbestos Lawyer About Your Case

The consumer expectations test gives California asbestos victims a powerful, common-sense way to prove a design defect: no ordinary user expects an industrial or building product to carry a hidden, lethal cancer risk. Sparks v. Owens-Illinois confirmed the test applies to asbestos insulation, and it remains an important tool alongside failure-to-warn and causation proof. Trembach Law Firm, led by Anatolii Trembach (admitted in California), builds design-defect and failure-to-warn cases against asbestos manufacturers and moves quickly because these cases demand it. Call (213) 645-2246 for a free, confidential consultation.

Contact Trembach Law Firm at (818) 514-7680 for a confidential consultation.

Trembach Law Firm | 27001 Agoura Road, Suite 350, Calabasas, CA 91301