What is product liability?

Useful Resources for Product Liability

Recent Rulings on Product Liability

51-75 of 3027 results

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

The demurrer attacks the product liability counts (4-6), invoking the so-called "commercial purchaser exception." Balfour Beatty filed opposition. ROA 75-76. ProSpectra filed reply. ROA 89. The court has reviewed the papers, and no further submissions are permitted. 2. Applicable Standards. A. A demurrer may only be sustained if the cross-complaint fails to state a cause of action under any possible legal theory. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 810; McCall v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

The demurrer attacks the product liability counts (4-6), invoking the so-called "commercial purchaser exception." Balfour Beatty filed opposition. ROA 75-76. ProSpectra filed reply. ROA 89. The court has reviewed the papers, and no further submissions are permitted. 2. Applicable Standards. A. A demurrer may only be sustained if the cross-complaint fails to state a cause of action under any possible legal theory. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 810; McCall v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

The demurrer attacks the product liability counts (4-6), invoking the so-called "commercial purchaser exception." Balfour Beatty filed opposition. ROA 75-76. ProSpectra filed reply. ROA 89. The court has reviewed the papers, and no further submissions are permitted. 2. Applicable Standards. A. A demurrer may only be sustained if the cross-complaint fails to state a cause of action under any possible legal theory. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 810; McCall v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

The demurrer attacks the product liability counts (4-6), invoking the so-called "commercial purchaser exception." Balfour Beatty filed opposition. ROA 75-76. ProSpectra filed reply. ROA 89. The court has reviewed the papers, and no further submissions are permitted. 2. Applicable Standards. A. A demurrer may only be sustained if the cross-complaint fails to state a cause of action under any possible legal theory. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 810; McCall v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TROY ERIK ISAAC VS KEVIN FANG, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

., Dasher Marques Love, Sixt Rent A Car, and Kevin Fang (“Defendants”) on April 23, 2019, alleging causes of action for: 1. strict product liability; 2. negligent product liability; and 3. motor vehicle negligence. Plaintiff alleges that his 2013 Mitsubishi Outlander vehicle suffered from defects which caused Plaintiff harm when he was rear-ended by another vehicle.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIO RODRIGUEZ VS LISA STANISLAWSKI

Volkswagen of America (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 1437, 1443 [“An amended complaint relates back where the original complaint is against a driver of a vehicle and the amended complaint seeks to bring in other defendants on warranty and product liability theories.”].) In this case, the FAC alleges that East West owned and maintained the property where the accident occurred, but that prior to the incident, East West negligently created or allowed a dangerous condition to exist on the property. (FAC ¿¿ 27-29.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 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 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DU VS. JOHN MUIR HEALTH

Sixth Cause of Action, Product Liability: Plaintiff attaches a Judicial Council form attachment for a cause of action for “Products Liability,” alleging two of the three counts provided in the form: negligence and breach of express warranty, but not strict liability. In the case that John Muir cites in support of its demurrer, Silverhart v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

MAURICE TUTU SWEENEY VS YEHUDA LEVY

In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges four causes of action for: (1) negligence against Levy; (2) product liability – failure to warn against MOC; (3) strict product liability against MOC; and (4) negligence against MOC. Defendant MOC has filed a cross-complaint against Roe Cross-Defendants for comparative indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

MAURICE TUTU SWEENEY VS YEHUDA LEVY

In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges four causes of action for: (1) negligence against Levy; (2) product liability – failure to warn against MOC; (3) strict product liability against MOC; and (4) negligence against MOC. Defendant MOC has filed a cross-complaint against Roe Cross-Defendants for comparative indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

JASON KANG VS CHRISTIAN RADO

On August 21, 2020, Jason Kang filed a cross-cross-complaint against Vaporous Technologies, Inc. for (1) product liability defect, (2) breach of warranty, (3) negligence, (4) breach of warranty, and (5) failure to warn. On August 26, 2020, Vaporous filed the herein motion for leave to amend the cross-complaint.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WILLIAM GLAD VS HONG WASH LLC ET AL

., product liability) is not required to file separate costs memoranda against each plaintiff or otherwise apportion its costs among the plaintiffs. Rather, defendant may file a single memorandum of costs for which all plaintiffs would be jointly and severally liable. If some costs are not related to the single theory of liability, but are specific to a particular plaintiff, plaintiffs may move to tax particular costs on the ground that it is unfair to include such costs in a joint award. [ Acosta v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SEBASTIAN GUPTA V. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC.

Defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s product liability, strict liability design defect, and negligence causes of action will be overruled. Defendant is correct that a plaintiff pleading causes of action for product liability and negligence must allege a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury. Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 900.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

SILVA ET AL. V. CITY OF FRESNO ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ counsel states that plaintiffs have “no evidence” to proceed with a product liability suit against New Flyer, and do not know if they are likely to have evidentiary support after further investigation and discovery. When plaintiffs believe they have product liability claims, but do not have a sufficient basis to allege such claims against a particular defendant, “their complaints must name Doe defendants (Code Civ. Proc. § 474).” Bockrath v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EVERARDO TORRES VS COMBE INCORPORATED, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges strict product liability, negligence, and breach of warranty arising out of the subject product Just For Men Mustache & Beard, M-40, Medium-Dark Brown. On April 30, 2020, Walmart filed a motion to strike pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (b). On May 1, 20202, the Court scheduled Walmart’s motion to strike to be heard on September 4, 2020. Trial is set for July 7, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

BENJAMIN C WATSON VS MAKITA U.S.A. INC ET AL

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants couldn’t carry the burden of demonstrating undue burden “even if they had tried” because “[d]iscovery of similar, if not identical, models is routinely permitted in product liability cases.” (Barcenas v. Ford Motor Co. (N.D. Cal. 2004) 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25279, *9; Opp. 7:20-22.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HAROLD FIGUEROA ET AL VS AT&T CORPORATION ET AL

The FAC asserts causes of action for (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. The FAC alleges in pertinent part as follows. All Access and JLG manufacture and supply telescopic boom lifts.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

OLVERA V. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC. ET AL.

Explanation: This is a product liability action in which plaintiff was injured when the 2016 Polaris Ranger Crew XP she was driving rolled over. On April 11, 2018 Polaris served factually devoid responses to Form Interrogatory no. 15.1, seeking all facts supporting each affirmative defense. (UMF 13, 14.) Plaintiff served a supplemental interrogatory requesting that Polaris review all of its prior responses to all interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff and update its responses. (UMF 15, 16.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

KARLA , INDIVIDUALLY & AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF OSCAR JOVANI MIRANDA AND VALERIA A. MIRANDA MIRANDA VS 7 STAR LOGISTICS, INC

The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was filed on February 25, 2020 and contains three causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) premises liability, and (3) product liability. The SAC alleges that Decedent Oscar Gilberto Miranda (“Decedent”) was Plaintiff’s husband and father to their minor children. (SAC, ¶ 18.) Decedent was an independent contractor and truck driver for Corporate Defendants. (Id. at ¶ 19.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC VS PLY GEM PACIFIC WINDOWS CORPORATION ET AL

The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, product liability—design defect, product liability—manufacturing defect, and negligent misrepresentation. (Complaint, ¶ 8.) On July 12, 2019, Ply Gem filed its answer to plaintiffs’ complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 65 affirmative defenses.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MARCELLA ANDERSON V. KENNETH GOLDBERG, DMD

Moreover, Plaintiff confirms in her opposition that “[n]owhere in the Complaint does Plaintiff allege a product liability claim against KEYSTONE based upon a claim of design defect.” (Opp., p. 4, ll. 4-6.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

BRIAN ARMSTRONG, ET AL. V. BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE OPERATIONS LLC, ET AL.

The substantive causes of action by Brian Armstrong include strict product liability, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and a variety of negligence-based claims related to these causes of action, against entities involved in the sale, manufacture, design, testing, repair, re-tread, service, or maintenance of the tire, a Dayton Radial Metro All Position Tire No. UA-24141-2, and a negligence claim against the Doe defendant owners/operators of the vehicle from which the tire separated.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 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 April 3, 2020, the CSMC Parties filed a cross-complaint against St. Jude Medical, LLC for indemnification, failure to warn, negligence, and intentional tort. Thereafter, on April 20, 2020, the CSMC Parties filed the instant motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. The St.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JANE DOE, 14 VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

(a Minnesota corporation) (collectively, “Polaris”), Seidner Enterprises LLC dba Bert’s Mega Mall (“Seidner”) and Does 1-100 for: Strict Product Liability Negligence Failure to Warn Negligent Recall Violation of Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq. and Violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « 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.