Valeria Segoviano Hernandez vs. Walmart Inc., et al.

Case Background

On May 18, 2021, Valeria Segoviano Hernandez filed a personal injury lawsuit against Walmart Inc. and Clorox Company after sustaining severe chemical burns after a bleach spill. The lawsuit claimed that the bottle design was defective and alleged negligence.

The case was filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. Judges Melvin D. Sandvig, Andrew E. Cooper, Michelle Williams Court, and Serena R. Murillo presided over this bleach spill lawsuit. [Case number: 21STCV18579]

Cause

Defendant Clorox Company, Inc., manufactured, marketed, and distributed consumer products, including sodium hypochlorite, widely recognized as liquid bleach. Meanwhile, Defendant Walmart, Inc., operated a global chain of hypermarkets, discount stores, and grocery outlets, including locations across California. Walmart advertised and sold sodium hypochlorite bleach, manufactured and supplied by Clorox.

On May 25, 2020, Plaintiff Valeria Segoviano Hernandez, a young mother, visited a Walmart store at 25450 The Old Road in Stevenson Ranch with her toddler. While shopping, she attempted to remove a bottle of Clorox bleach from a shelf approximately at shoulder height. As she lifted the bottle, its plastic cap detached unexpectedly, spilling bleach onto her left arm and hand, causing chemical burns.

Sodium hypochlorite, a widely used cleaning product, poses significant risks due to its highly corrosive nature (pH 11–13). While effective in destroying bacteria, it can cause severe harm to human health, as seen in Valeria Segoviano Hernandez’s case.

Skin contact with sodium hypochlorite damages tissue strips protective barriers and leaves skin vulnerable to infections and irritants. Even brief exposure can result in burns or long-term damage, while sunlight or UV exposure after contact increases the risk of further skin damage and discoloration. Inhaling its fumes may irritate the eyes, nose, and throat and lead to chronic respiratory issues.

Despite these dangers, Clorox failed to implement safety seals under bottle caps, a standard industry precaution to prevent spills. Prioritizing profits over safety, the company ignored safer design alternatives, exposing consumers to unnecessary risks and demonstrating a disregard for public well-being.

Injury

The bleach spill caused chemical burns on Valeria’s upper and lower left arm, leaving her with permanent scarring and skin discoloration. She also suffered nerve damage in her left hand and fingers. Despite receiving professional medical care, her wounds have not fully healed. Instead, her affected skin blisters and breaks open when exposed to sunlight, creating painful areas prone to infection.

Valeria now fears long-term health consequences, including an increased risk of skin cancer, metastatic melanoma, and potentially premature death. These concerns weigh heavily on her, as she worries about the possibility of her life being cut short by decades. The thought of her relationship with her young daughter being tragically shortened adds emotional torment to her physical suffering.

Damages

Plaintiff alleged that Clorox Company failed to implement basic safety measures, such as safety seals under bottle caps, which are standard in the industry. Despite available alternatives, the company continued using unsafe bottle designs, showing a disregard for public well-being.

Clorox also allegedly misled consumers by marketing sodium hypochlorite as “America’s favorite disinfectant,” implying it was safe for regular use. The Plaintiff claimed this negligence and deceptive advertising justified punitive damages, as Clorox’s actions reflect a willful disregard for the safety of its customers.

The Plaintiff sought compensatory damages from all Defendants, punitive damages against Clorox, reimbursement of legal costs, and applicable interest.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Valeria Segoviano Hernandez
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Jonathan A. Michaels | Travis R. Eagan | Iman Sorat
  • Defendant(s): Clorox Company, Inc. | Defendant Walmart, Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Andrew O. Smith | Yelena Khanpapyan | Annie Y.S. Chuang | Melina Manetti

Claims

Plaintiff included the following allegations in the third amended complaint:

Design Defect: Strict Liability

Valeria Segoviano Hernandez alleged that Clorox Company and Walmart were responsible for a defective Clorox bleach bottle that caused her injuries. Clorox manufactured and distributed the bottle, while Walmart advertised and sold it. The bottle failed to meet safety expectations, and its design risks outweighed any benefits. Safer, feasible alternatives were available, but Clorox neglected to implement them. The defective design directly caused Valeria’s injuries, justifying her claims for damages and punitive measures due to Clorox’s malicious conduct.

Negligence: Failure to Recall

Clorox knew for years that its bleach bottles lacked industry-standard safety seals, making them hazardous. Despite this, the company failed to recall the defective bottles. A reasonable manufacturer would have taken corrective action, but Clorox’s inaction caused significant harm to Valeria. Her injuries resulted from Clorox’s failure to address known safety risks, warranting compensation for damages.

General Negligence

Both Clorox and Walmart acted negligently. Clorox’s manufacturing and distribution practices failed to ensure safety, while Walmart sold the defective product and mishandled the incident. Walmart failed to provide immediate care for Valeria’s chemical burns and negligently advised her to return home to shower. Their collective negligence directly caused her injuries, entitling her to compensation for damages sustained.

Defense

Defendant Walmart Inc. responded to Plaintiff Valeria Segoviano Hernandez’s Second Amended Complaint by admitting, denying, and asserting several defenses. Walmart denied all allegations in the complaint, including any claim that Plaintiff suffered harm due to its actions.

Walmart raised several affirmative defenses, beginning with the argument that the complaint failed to state a valid cause of action. The company also stated that any potential liability could be attributed to the actions or omissions of other parties. Walmart further argued that the product in question had been altered and that Plaintiff knowingly assumed the associated risks. Additionally, Walmart maintained that the benefits of the product’s design outweighed any inherent risks.

Walmart contended that Plaintiff’s failure to notify about a breach of warranty or to mitigate damages barred recovery. The company denied knowledge of any unsafe conditions that could have contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries. It also claimed that it was not liable because it followed government specifications and that any defect was due to those specifications. Walmart argued that Plaintiff’s recovery should be reduced due to comparative negligence.

Further defenses included assertions of lack of notice, privity, and contractual obligations. Walmart pointed out that Plaintiff misused the product, and that the injuries resulted from unforeseeable misuse. Additionally, Walmart argued that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that it had taken reasonable steps to address any issues. Finally, Walmart argued that any defect was trivial and that Plaintiff’s claims were vague and uncertain.

Jury Verdict

The trial began on September 16, 2024. On October 3, 2024, a twelve-member jury returned a defense verdict. The jury determined that Walmart Inc. was negligent in its response to the bleach spill. However, it found that Walmart’s negligence was not the main cause of the plaintiff’s harm. The jury also concluded that Valeria was negligent, and her actions significantly contributed to her injuries.

Regarding the claim of strict liability for design defect, the jury sided with Clorox. It found that the benefits of the bottle design outweighed the potential risks.

Following the jury’s decision, Judge Melvin D. Sandvig issued a final judgment that aligned with the verdict, dismissing the case.

Court Documents:

Available for purchase upon request