What is product liability?

Useful Resources for Product Liability

Recent Rulings on Product Liability

26-50 of 3028 results

DAVID SULLIVAN VS ATHENIAN PLACE, INC., ET AL.

“With respect to a product liability action, to plead a cause of action for breach of express warranty, a plaintiff must allege the exact terms of the warranty, plaintiff's reasonable reliance thereon, and a breach of that warranty which proximately causes plaintiff injury.” (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 137.) Here, the complaint is devoid of specific facts regarding the alleged express warranty. The allegations are legal conclusions that may be disregarded on demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

LOHMANN VS. SAFEWAY INC., ET A

Courts in product liability cases have “repeatedly emphasized that one of the principal purposes behind the strict product liability doctrine is to relieve an injured plaintiff of many of the onerous evidentiary burdens inherent in a negligence cause of action (Perez v. VAS S.p.A. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 658, 677.) However, the plaintiff bears an initial burden of making “a prima facie showing that the injury was proximately caused by the product's design.”

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

SHERNAMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO, INC.

A dealership agreement between Shernaman and Honda provided that Honda would indemnify Shernaman against judgment from certain product liability lawsuits. On February 1, 2014 Shernaman and McCullen entered into an agreement under Mo. Rev. State. § 537.065 where McCullen agreed not to levy execution of any judgment against Shernaman except upon any insurer or indemnitor.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

A Personal Injury Action is an unlimited civil case described on the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location (LACIV 109) as Motor Vehicle-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death; Personal Injury /Property Damage/Wrongful Death-Uninsured Motorist; Product Liability; Intentional Bodily Injury/Property Damage; Wrongful Death; or Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death. (Local Rule, Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

JUAN PABLO BENITEZ VS CLASSIC COSMETICS INC ET AL

On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint for violation of Labor Code section 4558, strict product liability and negligence product liability. Classic Cosmetics is only named in the violation of Labor Code section 4558 cause of action. The press manufacturer(s)/distributor(s) is only named in the product liability causes of action. On December 21, 2018, Plaintiff substituted in PackDevCo., Inc. for Doe 1.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARIA DEL CARMEN VALDOVINOS ROSALES, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Distinguishing between the duty to warn consumers of a product’s hazards in a product liability claim and the duty to disclose under a fraud claim, the court in Bigler-Engler v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AMANDA A. BINNS, ET AL. VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

In Soto I, the United States District Court ruled a vehicle [**17] purchaser's product liability claim against the manufacturer was not “intertwined” with the sales contract merely because there would have been no warranty in the absence of a sale. (Id. at p. *3.) In so determining, the district court in Soto I rejected “the ‘but-for’ test or the ‘makes reference to’ test” relied upon by another federal district court in Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA (N.D.Cal., Sept. 28, 2012, No.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

IRMA LORENA VIZCARRA ET AL VS TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA INC

., and Toyota North America, Inc. move for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ complaint for (1) negligence—product liability, (2) breach of express and implied warranty, and (3) strict product liability. The court notes that defendant Toyota Motor Corporation was served on July 19, 2018, but has not answered the complaint. Defendant Lefevre’s Towing, Inc. was served on August 12, 2020. It has not responded to the complaint either.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JUDY REGWAN VS RONALD REAGAN UCLA MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

., Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 313, 324) As to the third Cause of Action, product liability, Abbott contends that the FAC fails to identify any defect in the product. Abbott also contends that Plaintiff’s claim is preempted by federal law. The court agrees on both counts. The FAC merely states that the saline bag contained a manufacturing defect causing the bag to run dry. This does not provide any indication that there was a defect in the bag.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

MILAN BACOKA SR ET AL VS BEST BUY CO ET AL

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: General Negligent Product Liability against Samsung – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligent Product Liability against Samsung; General Negligence against Samsung – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligence against Samsung; General Negligent Product Liability against Best Buy – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligent Product Liability against Best Buy; General Negligence against Best Buy – Res Ipsa Loquitur; and Specific Negligence against Best Buy.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

ANNA NEAL NEGRETE VS BRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC, ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) arising from Plaintiff dining at a Chili’s restaurant, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) civil extortion; (4) conspiracy to commit civil extortion; (5) aiding and abetting civil extortion; (6) false imprisonment; (7) product liability—negligence; and (8) product liability—strict liability—failure to warn.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ALEX JOHNSON, ET AL. VS DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE

Third, WMS argues the fifth cause of action fails because Plaintiffs’ claims against it rest solely on various theories of personal and product liability. WMS Dem. 19.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

DAVID WHITE, ET AL. VS ZIMMER US, INC., ET AL.

., and Sand Medical for: (1) negligence; (2) negligent design; (3) strict products liability-failure to warn; (4) negligent product liability – failure to warn; and (5) loss of consortium. Plaintiff David White alleges that on or around March 6, 2017 and March 30, 2017, David White presented himself to Spine Group Beverly Hills, and John J. Regan, M.D. with neck and arm pain. (FAC ¶ 14.) Plaintiff David White was diagnosed with “‘cervical spondylosis effecting (sic.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

The demurrer attacked the product liability counts (4-6), invoking the "commercial purchaser exception." The court made its rulings two weeks ago. ROA 95. Presently, Balfour Beatty seeks to disqualify plaintiff's counsel on grounds that the Balistreri, Potocki & Holmes law firm ("BPH Firm") formerly represented Balfour Beatty on a regular basis in construction defect matters, and learned confidential information in connection with those prior engagements. ROA 77-84, 88. ProSpectra filed opposition.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

The demurrer attacked the product liability counts (4-6), invoking the "commercial purchaser exception." The court made its rulings two weeks ago. ROA 95. Presently, Balfour Beatty seeks to disqualify plaintiff's counsel on grounds that the Balistreri, Potocki & Holmes law firm ("BPH Firm") formerly represented Balfour Beatty on a regular basis in construction defect matters, and learned confidential information in connection with those prior engagements. ROA 77-84, 88. ProSpectra filed opposition.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SUPERIOR COURT VS. MIRANDA WINES

The original wrongful death complaint was based on a theory of premises liability and product liability. Plaintiff was allowed to amend his complaint to add a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress finding that the acts and the injuries were the same thing— death by electrocution. This Court believes that this case lies probably somewhere between Rowland and Weinstock on one hand and Coronet on the other.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

DELINIA R PINZON ET AL VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

Xunzhang Wang (collectively, the “CSMC Parties”), as well as product liability claims against Defendants Abbott Laboratories and St. Jude Medical, LLC (jointly, the “St. Jude Parties”). On February 21, 2020, the St. Jude Parties filed a motion for summary judgment. On April 3, 2020, the CSMC Parties filed a cross-complaint against St. Jude Medical, LLC for indemnification, failure to warn, negligence, and intentional tort. On April 14, 2020, the St.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

The demurrer attacked the product liability counts (4-6), invoking the "commercial purchaser exception." The court made its rulings two weeks ago. ROA 95. Presently, Balfour Beatty seeks to disqualify plaintiff's counsel on grounds that the Balistreri, Potocki & Holmes law firm ("BPH Firm") formerly represented Balfour Beatty on a regular basis in construction defect matters, and learned confidential information in connection with those prior engagements. ROA 77-84, 88. ProSpectra filed opposition.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MICHAEL ALLEN DENNY VS TUUYEN NGUYEN, ET AL.

Moreover, Plaintiff contends the proposed amendment will allow for Plaintiff to add the five causes of action based on facts learned of product liability. (CRC Rule 3.1324(b)(1).) Additionally, the amendment is necessary and proper because the current complaint does not provide complete relief to Plaintiff with regard to his substantial bodily injuries. (CRC Rule 3.1324(b)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

JMS HOLDINGS COMPANY LLC VS JAKE'S ROOFING AND COATINGS, INC

As to the Second cause of action for Product Liability, Plaintiff does not specify adequately in what manner Lapolla’s product was defective and in what manner it caused harm to Plaintiff. “[W]e conclude that the manufacturer of a defective window installed in a mass-produced home may be held strictly liable in tort for damage that the window's defect causes to other parts of the home in which it is installed.

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2020

GLENN GRESKO, ET AL. VS HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for strict product liability and negligent product liability arising out of an accident that occurred while Gresko was driving her 2016 Honda HRV in May 2017. On December 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Proof of Service of Summons stating that HMC had been served by substitute service on November 1, 2019 at 12:38 p.m. “by delivery to agent for service of process for its resident U.S.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

NATALIE RUBIO , ET AL. VS GENIE INDUSTRIES, INC. , ET AL.

Plaintiffs seek approval of settlements with Sunbelt and Club totaling $849,999.98, leaving Plaintiffs with their product liability claims against Defendant Genie Industries to be tried or otherwise resolved. Sunbelt will pay $375,000 to each minor plaintiff, and Club will pay $49,999.99 to each. Under the proposed settlement, each minor plaintiff shall receive a gross settlement of $424,999.99.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

NHIEU V. CENTRAL HEALTH PLAN OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

“[O]ne of the principal purposes behind the strict product liability doctrine is to relieve an injured plaintiff of many of the onerous evidentiary burdens inherent in a negligence cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

JOHNSON VS SDE ENGINEERING, IN

SDE has not sufficiently described the application of this product liability rule here. Presumably, the house is the product and the decrease in value due to roof defects is the “economic loss.” However, the authorities relating to the rule would seem to have “little or no application when the commercial relationship of the parties […] relates only to the performance of services.” (Id. at pp. 780-781.) Assuming the economic loss rule could apply here, plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded property damage.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

PATEL M.D. VS JELD-WEN, INC

Roughly sixteen years after the home was completed, they sued JW on theories of negligence, strict product liability, breach of warranty, intentional concealment (fraud) and negligent misrepresentation. JW contends certain of the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that certain claims are so uncertain and omit essential elements that they fail to state claims upon which relief can be granted.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 122     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.