Legal Question in Personal Injury in California

Why would a buyer of clothing be responsible for something that happened in another country? That does not make sense at all.

Starting with the simple part of your question, treaties are much like contracts between national governments. You can't hold an individual liable for violations of treaties. Some treaties include agreements between nations that certain conduct will constitute crimes, but these are pretty much limited to things like genocide and war crimes. I know of no treaty that criminalizes any commercial conduct no matter how egregious.

As for liability of a California purchaser of goods from a factory that burns, killing and injuring workers, that depends on the laws of the country in which the factory is located. If you wanted to hold a foreign national liable for a sweatshop fire in the U.S., you would have to prove the person either owned, or had possession and control of the dangerous premises, and knew of the dangers and did nothing about them. It is unlikely you could ever have a mere buyer of goods held liable, even if they were the most important customer with significant influence over the factory. This is because the intervening negligence or other wrongful conduct of the actual owners and operators of the business are the direct cause of any dangerous condition. As I said, however, the law of the location of the factory would be controlling in the situation you describe, not U.S. law.

With many limitations, the 1971 hague convention opens up civil lawsuits against negligence in foriegn countries. Its worth the discussion. Please call my office at 818 385 0520 to set up a telephone discussion.