What is product liability?

Useful Resources for Product Liability

Recent Rulings on Product Liability

226-250 of 3025 results

ELKHOURY VS. SEARS ROEBUCK

Product Liability (First Cause of Action) To state a claim for product liability, Plaintiff must allege that he was harmed by a product manufactured by Defendant that contained a manufacturing defect or was defectively designed or did not include sufficient instructions or warning of potential safety hazards. CACI 1200. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s cause of action for product liability fails because he has not alleged damage. It is true that Plaintiff’s FAC fails to allege any harm.

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2019

WILLIAM MARTINEZ VS LG CHEM LTD ET AL

LG Chem, and have represented LG Chem in cases involving similar product liability allegations. Accordingly, the applications are GRANTED. II. Quash Specially Appearing Defendant LG Chem Ltd.’s motion to quash is CONTINUED. Specially Appearing Defendant LG Chem Ltd. moves to quash Plaintiff’s service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CCP 418.10(a)(1).

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

KLARA ERNYES-KOFLER, ET AL. V. SANOFI S.A., ET AL.

They assert claims for (1) product liability for negligence, (2) strict products liability for failure to warn, (3) fraudulent misrepresentation, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) strict products liability for misrepresentation, (6) fraud and deceit, and (7) extreme and outrageous conduct/intentional infliction of emotional distress. II.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2019

MCDOWELL VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Based on those assertions, Plaintiffs Brian McDowell and his wife, Jennifer McDowell, allege claims for Strict Product Liability and Negligent Product Liability. Jennifer seeks loss of consortium as an element of damage rather than a separately pled cause of action. The complaint originally named Ford Motor Company as a defendant. The dealership was later added. On 12/18/17, Computer Deductions, Inc. (“CDI”) was added as a Doe defendant.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2019

PETER QUIJANO VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METRO TRANS AUTHORITY ET

Code, §§ 815.2(A), 820(A), 835, 840.2); negligence; and strict product liability arising out of a July 22, 2016 incident where he was hit by a wheel flange while working as a composite mechanic. SCRRA moves for summary judgment on grounds Plaintiff’s action is barred by the Privette doctrine. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Prior to July 2016, SCRRA contracted with Bombardier, Inc. (“Bombardier”) to perform repair and maintenance on Metrolink passenger cabs at the Metrolink Central Maintenance Facility.

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GRANDE SOUTH HOMEOWNERS VS STARLINE WINDOWS INC [E-FILE]

Rather, in opposition Plaintiffs argue this is a "product liability/breach of warranty" case, not a "construction defect" case. Plaintiffs premise their argument on evidence that Starline has represented in this case that "the products it supplied, the window wall modules, 'were completely manufactured offsite' and therefore [Plaintiffs argue] a 'manufactured product' for which there is no recovery under the Right to Repair Act pursuant to the holding in Kohler."

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GRANDE SOUTH HOMEOWNERS VS STARLINE WINDOWS INC [E-FILE]

Rather, in opposition Plaintiffs argue this is a "product liability/breach of warranty" case, not a "construction defect" case. Plaintiffs premise their argument on evidence that Starline has represented in this case that "the products it supplied, the window wall modules, 'were completely manufactured offsite' and therefore [Plaintiffs argue] a 'manufactured product' for which there is no recovery under the Right to Repair Act pursuant to the holding in Kohler."

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ALEXIS FERNANDEZ ET AL VS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COM

Plaintiffs further allege on August 27, 2015, plaintiffs’ counsel Roger Dreyer, acting on behalf of plaintiffs, sent a letter to Tony Soria of Geico, stating that plaintiffs would be investigating and/or pursuing a product liability claim against Toyota and requested that Geico undertake to preserve the Corolla as evidence. Id., ¶33.

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BHARTI DHALWALA VS QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED ET AL

Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the Motion for summary adjudication of the second cause of action for product liability. For the reasons stated above, the Motion is GRANTED. V. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, the Motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Motion for summary adjudication of the second cause of action for product liability is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2019

DEBORAH CANTER VS GLASSICAL CREATIONS INC ET AL

The complaint, filed April 5, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) premises liability based on negligent installation; (2) premises liability; (3) premises liability based on landlord’s duty; (4) product liability based on strict liability; and (5) product liability based on negligence.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BAYSIDE OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. BOSA CALIFORNIA LLC [E-FILE]

., "the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Act"). McMillin Albany, 4 Cal.5th at 249. The court is not persuaded by Plaintiff's reliance on Kohler Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NGUYEN VS. MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.

While it is true expert witness declarations are the foundation of many motions for summary judgment, knowing the identity of plaintiff’s product liability expert is not a prerequisite for filing the motion. Any declaration in support of plaintiff’s claim may be rebutted in the opposition to the motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2019

HAROLD FIGUEROA ET AL VS AT&T CORPORATION ET AL

On September 6, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint allege nine causes of action including: (1) strict product liability- failure to warn; (2) negligence-product liability; (3) negligent entrustment; (4) negligent hiring and retention; (5) premises liability; (6) negligent provision of required safeguards; (7) negligence- peculiar risk of harm; (8) wrongful death; and (9) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2019

JEREMIAH STROUD ET AL VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC ET AL

.; Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC; PV Holding Corp; Avis Budget Rent-A-Car; and Avis Budget Rent-A-Car Hawthorne (H8C) alleging causes of action for: Strict Product Liability; Negligence; Wrongful Death (Strict Product Liability); Negligence (Maintenance and Repair); Wrongful Death (Negligence); Intentional Misrepresentation; and Negligent Misrepresentation. On February 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

RICHARD GRANADOS ER AL. V. LOS AGAVES IV GOLETA INC., ET AL.

The contention of liability is based on ordinary product liability theories. The amount of duplication of witnesses between the two phases would be significant, and it would be very time consuming to hear from them twice. This case shares a common profile with many cases that are tried before the court in a unified manner on a regular basis.

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2019

KISHA LOOMIS VS FORRINX TECHNOLOGY(USA) INC

Product Liability—Count One-- Strict Liability and Count Two-- Negligence To establish a cause of action for strict product liability, the plaintiff must allege and prove the following elements: 1. Defendant was a manufacturer or seller of a product which reached plaintiff without substantial change in its condition. 2. The product was used in the manner intended 3.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2019

CORCORAN VS. ALTFILLISCH CONTRACTORS, INC.

Gomez was a case involving spoliation of evidence by an employer that deprived the employee’s widow of the opportunity to prosecute a product liability claim against the manufacturer of the device that killed her husband. It was the spoliation that the Court of Appeal observed was outside the scope of the exclusivity rule. Id. at 751. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, as owner of the property, essentially failed to maintain a safe work environment for decedent.

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2019

DIONE LOUISE EATON VS ZEN E OBOGI MD

Conclusion Defendants’ demurrer to the first cause of action (Professional Negligence) is sustained with leave to amend; the demurrer to the second cause of action (Product Liability – Negligence) is overruled. The motion to strike is granted as to punitive damages and denied as to earning capacity. Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint with 10 days.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2019

ERIKA SALDANA ET AL VS RALPH REFUGIO GARCIA

Background This product liability and negligence case arises from allegations that Plaintiffs Alberto Martinez, Erika Saldana, and Albert Martinez were driving westbound on North Broadway Street, Los Angeles, California when Defendant Ralph Refugio Garcia (“Garcia”) swerved into Plaintiffs’ lane while traveling the opposite direction, causing a head-on collision that resulted in injuries.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

LOUIS VELASCO VS THE VAPORS ET AL

Hedley are retained by one client, i.e. defendant LG Chem, LTD (“defendant”) and have represented defendant in cases involving similar product liability allegations. Accordingly, the applications are GRANTED. Defendant application to seal records lodged in support of plaintiffs’ oppositions to defendant’s motions for protective order is GRANTED. Defendant moves to seal records pursuant to California Rules of Court 2.550.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2019

MICHAEL SHABSIS VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF

In the first amended complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiffs assert causes of action for (1) medical negligence; (2) respondeat superior; (3) denial of medical care; (4) excessive force; (5) battery; (6) negligence; (7) strict product liability- failure to warn; (8) strict products liability- negligence; (9) breach of express warranty; (10) breach of implied warranty; and (11) negligence.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

MELISSA P. DIAZ VS WALMART INC.

The Seventh Cause of Action for Product Liability fails in that Plaintiff’s injuries are not alleged to have been caused by a product generally or a product purchased from Walmart. The demurrer is sustained to these two causes of action. Based on the foregoing, Walmart’s unopposed Demurrer is SUSTAINED to the Third through the Seventh Causes of Action with twenty (20) days’ leave to amend. Motion to Strike Walmart’s unopposed Motion to Strike punitive damages is MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2019

MICHAEL ALLEN VS WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS CORP

In general, product liability actions accrue on the date of injury. Such claims, however, may be subject to the discovery rule, which delays accrual until plaintiff discovers “has reason to suspect” a factual basis for the elements of the claim. (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806-807.) Here, Plaintiff alleges that between 1987 and 1990, he was prescribed prednisone which caused psychosis and hallucinations, which in turn caused him to commit robbery and murder.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HAROLD FIGUEROA ET AL VS AT&T CORPORATION ET AL

On September 6, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint allege nine causes of action including: (1) strict product liability- failure to warn; (2) negligence-product liability; (3) negligent entrustment; (4) negligent hiring and retention; (5) premises liability; (6) negligent provision of required safeguards; (7) negligence- peculiar risk of harm; (8) wrongful death; and (9) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2019

MULHERE VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

ConocoPhillips (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1199-1200 – in a product liability action alleging fraudulent concealment, it was sufficient for plaintiff to allege that defendants were “aware of the toxic nature of their products and owed a duty to disclose the toxic properties of their products to [plaintiff] because [defendants] alone had knowledge of material facts, to wit the toxic properties of their products, which were not available to [plaintiff].”)

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2019

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 121     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.