Case Background
Anthony Ortega and Alicia Ortega filed this products liability lawsuit against California Backyard, Inc. and R.H. Peterson Co., Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, case number 34-2019-00265111. The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on May 6, 2020, through their attorney, Jesse Ortiz of Ortiz Law Group, PC. R.H. Peterson Co., Inc. filed its answer to the first amended complaint on September 17, 2021, through its attorneys, David A. Clinton and Marlon D'Oyen of Clinton & Clinton. The Honorable Gordon D. Schaber presided over the matter at the time R.H. Peterson filed its answer. The case involved a built-in gas barbeque grill that California Backyard sold to the Plaintiffs and that R.H. Peterson manufactured. The matter proceeded to a jury trial beginning May 14, 2025, in Department 31 of the same Court before the Honorable Steven M. Gevercer, with California Backyard, Inc. as the sole Defendant at trial, represented by David R. Casady and Katie Bonin.
Cause
Plaintiffs Anthony Ortega and Alicia Ortega purchased an American Outdoor Grill brand built-in gas barbeque grill from California Backyard, Inc. in or around July 2013. California Backyard also installed the grill at the Plaintiffs' residence in Elk Grove, California, in or around August 2013. The Plaintiffs used the grill without any issues from 2013 to late 2018. In December 2018, Anthony Ortega noticed flames coming from an area of the grill that should not have emitted flames and stopped using it. He contacted California Backyard, which sent employees to the residence in January 2019 to make adjustments and repairs. The Plaintiffs were told the grill was fixed and ready for use. On or about June 1, 2019, while Anthony Ortega used the grill for its intended purpose, it emitted a large fireball.
Injury
The fireball caused Anthony Ortega to sustain substantial burns to his legs and other injuries. Emergency medical service personnel transported him to the hospital after 9-1-1 was called. He underwent extensive medical care and suffered pain, disability, scarring, and disfigurement.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiffs sought special and general damages according to proof, attorney's fees to the extent permitted by law, and costs of suit. Anthony Ortega alleged permanent pain, continuous injuries, emotional trauma, lost earnings, and past and future medical bills. Alicia Ortega, his wife, brought a loss of consortium claim, alleging loss of her husband's support, companionship, services, society, love, and affection, along with her own emotional pain and mental anguish.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Anthony Ortega | Alicia Ortega
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Jesse Ortiz
Defendant(s): California Backyard, Inc.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): David R. Casady | Katie Bonin | Marlon D'Oyen
Claims
The Plaintiffs filed six causes of action against California Backyard, Inc. and R.H. Peterson Co., Inc. in the First Amended Complaint: strict liability for failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and loss of consortium. The complaint alleged that the grill was defective and unreasonably dangerous when it left the Defendants' possession because it contained warnings insufficient to alert consumers of the dangerous risks, including the improper emission of flames. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the grill was defective in design and that safer alternative designs existed. Under the warranty claims, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants expressly represented in their marketing materials that the grill was safe, fit for its intended purpose, and adequately tested, and that the Defendants breached these warranties because the grill was not in merchantable condition.
Defense
R.H. Peterson Co., Inc. answered the first amended complaint and denied the allegations generally and specifically. R.H. Peterson raised thirty-nine affirmative defenses, including that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, that the Plaintiffs had unreasonably delayed in bringing the action, that the Plaintiffs had unclean hands, and that the Plaintiffs had already settled and compromised a claim for relief prior to the filing of the first amended complaint. R.H. Peterson also argued that the Plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable care for their own safety, that any defect resulted from misuse or unauthorized modification of the product after it left the Defendant's possession, that the product complied with government specifications, and that the product was not defective under the applicable state-of-the-art standard. R.H. Peterson further argued that its liability, if any, should be apportioned under California's Fair Responsibility Act of 1986.
At trial, California Backyard, Inc. argued that the grill had been misused or modified after it left the company's possession in a way that was so highly extraordinary that the misuse or modification was not reasonably foreseeable, and that this misuse or modification was the sole cause of Anthony Ortega's harm.
Jury Verdict
The trial began on May 14, 2025, in Department 31 of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, before the Honorable Steven M. Gevercer. A jury of twelve persons heard the evidence, the arguments of counsel, and the instructions of the Court, then reached its verdict on May 27, 2025.
Design Defect Claim
The jury found that California Backyard sold the barbeque. The jury then found that the barbeque had been misused or modified after it left California Backyard's possession in a way that was so highly extraordinary that it was not reasonably foreseeable to California Backyard. The jury further found that this misuse or modification was the sole cause of Anthony Ortega's harm. The jury answered no further questions on this claim.
Negligence Claim
The jury found that California Backyard had repaired the barbeque it sold to the Plaintiffs. The jury then found that California Backyard was not negligent in repairing the barbeque. The jury answered no further questions on this claim.
Implied Warranty of Merchantability Claim
The jury found that Anthony Ortega bought the barbeque from California Backyard and that California Backyard was in the business of selling such goods. The jury then found that the sale of the barbeque did not include notice that would have made a buyer aware that it was being sold without any representations relating to the quality that a buyer would expect. The jury answered no further questions on this claim.
Outcome
Based on the jury's special verdict, the Court ordered, adjudged, and decreed judgment in favor of the Defendant, California Backyard, Inc. Judge Gevercer signed the judgment on special verdict on May 28, 2025, and the Court mailed notice of entry of judgment to counsel for both parties that same day.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
