What is product liability?

Useful Resources for Product Liability

Recent Rulings on Product Liability

101-125 of 3028 results

VIVI ROBYN STAFFORD VS BROADSTONE FAIRFAX, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) premises liability; and (3) strict product liability.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

JULIE LEE V. MARV’S REFRIGERATION, INC. ET. AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Case Management Cofnerence Personal Injury case (premises liability/ product liability). Matter was set for long cause jury trial for July 13, 2020. That date is no longer feasible and will be vacated given limitation of court operations during COVID-19 quarantine period. Court has held extensive pre-trial (motion) hearings – the most recent one was 3/6/20.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

OROZCO VS. LYFT, INC.

Motion for Leave to file a First Amended Complaint Plaintiff Olyvia Orozco seeks an order allowing her to file a First Amended Complaint which adds Uber Technologies, Inc as a named defendant and adds two new causes of action for negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision and strict product liability against both Uber Technologies, Inc. and Lyft, Inc. The courts are liberal in allowing amendments in order for lawsuits to be determined on their merits. (See Desney v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

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

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC. V. STYLE-LINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

The next question is whether Style-Line should be granted leave to amend to allege a theory of strict or negligent product liability. In ruling on the summary judgment motion, this court determined that the defects in the roof were known since at least the end of 2010. Based on the three year limitations period (Code Civ. Proc. § 338; County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318), any claim would have had to be filed by December 2013.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

JMS HOLDINGS COMPANY LLC VS JAKE'S ROOFING AND COATINGS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL.

The Second cause of action for Product Liability fails because the allegations do not specify in what manner Lapolla’s product was defective and in what manner it caused harm to Plaintiff. Second cause of action for Product Liability will be sustained with twenty days leave to amend. The Third cause of action for Breach of Limited Warranty is not binding on Lapolla because (1) there is no privity with Plaintiff and (2) the Limited Warranty specifically excludes any implied warranty.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

ARMANDO LOPEZ VS GLOCKSTORE ET AL

Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that strict product liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties for a gun that negligently discharged and harmed Plaintiff on November 5, 2016. On July 13, 2018, the Court dismissed Defendants Lenny Magills, San Diego Sewing Company, and San Diego Sewing Company dba Glockstore without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

DEREK ROHAN VS JAYBELL, LLC

The McMillin court stated that, based on the text and legislative history, the Legislature intended to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Act.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DON A YOUNG VS EAGLERIDER INC ET AL

The complaint alleges negligence, product liability, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The complaint also alleges the defendants negligently repaired a motorcycle that caused Plaintiff to lose control of the motorcycle and slide across a freeway on or about February 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KRISTIE DOYLE, ET AL. V. IMERYS TALC AMERICA INC., ET AL.

Kristie Doyle, and her son, Ethan Doyle, by and through his guardian ad litem (collectively “Plaintiffs”), bring causes of action for product liability and wrongful death against Imerys Talc America, Inc. (“Imerys”), Cyprus Mines Corporation (“Cyprus”), and Johnson & Johnson/Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (“J&J”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2020

GRACE ALBA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SYLVIA ALBA VS SPARKLETTS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Special Interrogatory No. 46: Please identify other lawsuits brought against YOU for product liability claims associated with YOUR water dispensers. Special Interrogatory No. 47: Please identify other claims brought against YOU for product liability claims associated with YOUR water dispensers. Special Interrogatory No. 48: If YOU keep data about injuries associated with YOUR water dispensers, please identify all databases relating to such data.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

SERGIO COVARRUBIAS, ET AL. VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING BY AND THROUGH HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY, ET AL.

The complaint alleges causes of action for: 1) dangerous condition of public property; 2) negligence; and 3) product liability. The causes of action arise out of the collapse of a steel rebar column at or near the California High-Speed Rail Project for the San Joaquin River bridge construction project in Fresno County, California, on November 18, 2017, where Plaintiffs were present and working as laborers. On February 10, 2020, Scott E.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

HUGO MEDINA ET AL VS LIQUID ASPHALT SYSTEMS INC ET AL

The complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and strict product liability, arising from the explosion of an asphalt tanker during a roofing job. On September 20, 2019, Morey & Upton, LLP, the previous counsel for Plaintiff Jesus Torres (“Torres”), filed a motion to be relieved as counsel as to Plaintiff Torres with the Court. On December 2, 2019, Department 4A of the Court heard and granted the motion. Morey & Upton, LLP remained as counsel for Plaintiff Hugo Medina.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RODRIGO SALAS VS YEN LIN CHU ET AL

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Joe Dvoracek (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Northwest Dealerco Holdings, LLC (“Defendant”) on December 22, 2017, alleging causes of action for premises and product liability arising from a defective gas pump and subsequent slip and fall on Defendant’s premises.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

JOE DVORACEK VS NORTHWEST DEALERCO HOLDINGS LLC ET AL

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Joe Dvoracek (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Northwest Dealerco Holdings, LLC (“Defendant”) on December 22, 2017, alleging causes of action for premises and product liability arising from a defective gas pump and subsequent slip and fall on Defendant’s premises.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

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

    Feb 24, 2020

SHAHNAZ AMIRTALESH VS ROCHELLE H. STERLING, ET AL.

The holding in El Escorial is a narrow holding more relevant in construction defect and product liability tort cases than an abatement case like ours. El Escorial reminds us that because nuisance is so broadly defined, whether a cause of action is viable is fact-dependent. (El Escorial Owners' Assn., supra, at 1348.) Our facts, as pled, fall outside El Escorial.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KLEISER VS. CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

Each of these negates an essential element of every version of Plaintiffs’ product liability cause of action. In the absence of counter evidence by Plaintiff, there is no triable issue of fact.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

CORE HEALTH & FITNESS LLC ET AL VS NATIONAL UNION FIRE I

Fitness on a strict liability, product liability theory on design defect under either the consumer expectation or design or risk benefit theory? Mr. Beecher: No. The Court: What are you suing L.A. Fitness for? Mr. Beecher: We’re suing L.A. Fitness for negligence, gross negligence, premises liability under pure negligence, and premises liability under the gross negligence standard. The Court: Are you suing L.A. Fitness for any manufacturing or design defect in the subject -- what do we call this -- Mr.

  • Hearing

    Feb 12, 2020

JAMES PRICKETT ET AL VS CATERPILLAR INC ET AL

Further, despite diligent efforts, Defendant has only recently identified the subject product at issue for the instant product liability claim. (Id. ¶ 10.) Finally, Defendant states that a trial continuance will allow Defendant to bring a summary judgment motion. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to this motion to continue the trial and all related dates. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant’s motion to continue the trial date is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VINCENT BRYANT VS WALKENHORSTS COMPANY

The Court found that, because Plaintiff had not alleged which theory of liability he was asserting, it was not able to apply the correct elements of a product liability claim. (Id.) In addition, the Court stated that it was not persuaded that Plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to establish any type of product liability claim. (Id.) On October 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Reply to Hearing on Demurrer Dated Sept. 4, 2019 Amended Addendum to Original Complaint” (the “Reply”).

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANGELA MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., ET AL.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Angela Martinez, as Personal Representative of Estate of Adan Martinez RELIEF REQUESTED: Demurrer Sustain demurrer to first, second and third causes of action of Complaint Sanctions Impose monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.7 against attorney Martin Arteaga and the Law Offices of Martin Arteaga CAUSES OF ACTION: from Complaint 1) Negligence 2) Continuation of Decedent’s Causes of Action (Survival Action) 3) Wrongful Death 4) Premises Liability 5) Strict Product Liability

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

MARAT CHORNY VS SPECIAL CAKES BY RUBEN, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

(“Defendant”) asserting the following causes of action: (1) strict product liability; (2) negligence; (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges that while eating a piece of cake at his own wedding, he broke a tooth when he bit down onto a hard, plastic inedible pearl decoration.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSEFINA HANSING VS. RICHARD ANTHONY SEPOLIO [E-FILE]

., product liability) is not required to file separate costs memoranda against each plaintiff or otherwise apportion its costs among the plaintiffs. Instead, the defendant may file a sole memorandum of costs in 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. See Acosta v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JOSEFINA HANSING VS. RICHARD ANTHONY SEPOLIO [E-FILE]

., product liability) is not required to file separate costs memoranda against each plaintiff or otherwise apportion its costs among the plaintiffs. Instead, the defendant may file a sole memorandum of costs in 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. See Acosta v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  « 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.