What is product liability?

Useful Resources for Product Liability

Recent Rulings on Product Liability

126-150 of 3025 results

JEREMIAH STROUD ET AL VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC ET AL

On July 9, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), asserting causes of action for: Strict Product Liability; Negligence; Wrongful Death (Strict Product Liability); Negligence (Maintenance and Repair); Wrongful Death (Negligence); Intentional Misrepresentation; Negligent Misrepresentation; Negligence (Failure to Provide Access to Child Restraint System in Violation of California Vehicle Code 27365 et seq.); and Negligence Per Se (Failure to Provide Access to Child Restraint System

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

RODRIGO TORRES UY ET AL VS FANG XIE

After settling with the named defendant, and after the statute of limitations had expired, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against defendants who had allegedly designed, manufactured and distributed the subject vehicle, stating various causes of action for negligence, breach of express and implied warranty, and strict product liability.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2020

NICHOLAS V. MORETTA VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

(a Minnesota corporation), 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

    Dec 19, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JAIMIE VALENZUELA, ET AL. VS MARTIN ANDALUZ ABARCA, ET AL.

If a product liability action is based on personal injury, death, or property damage, it is subject to the personal injury statute of limitations, even though the plaintiff alleges a nontort cause of action such as breach of warranty. (See Becker v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 794; Mack v. Hugh W. Comstock Associates, Inc. (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 583; Lai Wum Chin Mock v. Belfast Beverages, Inc. (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 770.) The statute of limitations for personal injury is two years.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAROLD FIGUEROA ET AL VS AT&T CORPORATION ET AL

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) strict product liability – failure to warn against All Access and JLG, (2) negligence – product liability against All Access and JLG, (3) negligent entrustment against AT&T, AT&T Wireless, Cingular, and Vinculums, (4) negligent hiring and retention against AT&T, AT&T Wireless, Cingular, and Vinculums, (5) premises liability against AT&T, AT&T Wireless, Cingular, and RBR, (6) negligent provision of required safeguards against AT&T, AT&T Wireless, Cingular, and Vinculums

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2019

HAROLD FIGUEROA ET AL VS AT&T CORPORATION ET AL

The FAC asserts four causes of action against JLG: (1) strict product liability – failure to warn, (2) negligence – product liability, (3) wrongful death, and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

KYTSA ENTERPRISE CO., LTD. DBA OZARK VS MJD INDUSTRIES, LLC, DBA ARES TOOL, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Ltd. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 543, on which Plaintiff relies, is a product liability case and not a contract case like this one, it is analogous in terms of the defendant’s contacts with California. In that wrongful death suit, the plaintiffs sued a California importer and distributor of Korean consumer products that sold a defective humidifier cleaning agent to a Los Angeles retail store where it was purchased by the decedent. (Id. at 548.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BEATRIZ VALDEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 200

Sasol argues that the Complaint does not plead sufficient facts under the standard for toxic tort product liability cases articulated in Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc. supra, 21 Cal.4th 71. (Motion at p. 2.) In Bockrath, the Court held that in cases of negligence, the “plaintiff must plead specific facts affording an inference that one caused the others.” (Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc. supra, 21 Cal.4th at 78.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

JASMINA ZIGIC VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC ET AL

RFP Number 174 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS produced by YOU in the class action In Re Volkswagen Timing Chain Product Liability Litigation, United States District Comt, District of New Jersey) Case No. 2:16- 23 cv-02765-JLL-JAD, which was filed on May 16, 2016.” (Id. at p. 17:20-23.) First, Defendant provided supplemental responses to numbers 170 and 172, thus the motion to compel further responses as to those requests is DENIED as moot.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CHRISTIAN GRIFFIN VS BLACK MOUNTAIN RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

BMR LLC raises two arguments in support of its motion: 1) "BMR LLC cannot be found liable under Plaintiffs' product liability or tort based theories because BMR LLC did not design or construct the Reservoir" and 2) "the construction of the Reservoir was completed as of May 30, 2003, and therefore, any claims arising out of the design and/or construction of the Reservoir are barred by the 10-year statute of repose set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15."

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CHRISTIAN GRIFFIN VS BLACK MOUNTAIN RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

BMR LLC raises two arguments in support of its motion: 1) "BMR LLC cannot be found liable under Plaintiffs' product liability or tort based theories because BMR LLC did not design or construct the Reservoir" and 2) "the construction of the Reservoir was completed as of May 30, 2003, and therefore, any claims arising out of the design and/or construction of the Reservoir are barred by the 10-year statute of repose set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15."

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MITRIONE VS BREG INC

However, the primary product liability witnesses and evidence are likely in California as opposed to Maryland. Maryland is where the injury occurred, but expert witnesses will be required for causation and damages, resulting in a looser connection to Maryland. The public interest weighs in favor of California. The State of California has a strong interest in products manufactured, sold and distributed by corporations in the State of California and which are incorporated in California.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MITRIONE VS BREG INC

However, the primary product liability witnesses and evidence are likely in California as opposed to Maryland. Maryland is where the injury occurred, but expert witnesses will be required for causation and damages, resulting in a looser connection to Maryland. The public interest weighs in favor of California. The State of California has a strong interest in products manufactured, sold and distributed by corporations in the State of California and which are incorporated in California.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MITRIONE VS BREG INC

However, the primary product liability witnesses and evidence are likely in California as opposed to Maryland. Maryland is where the injury occurred, but expert witnesses will be required for causation and damages, resulting in a looser connection to Maryland. The public interest weighs in favor of California. The State of California has a strong interest in products manufactured, sold and distributed by corporations in the State of California and which are incorporated in California.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MEENA ZAREH M D VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

In Sherman, plaintiff brought a product liability action against defendant manufacturer and the case proceeded to trial with a verdict in favor of the defendant. (Id. at 1158.) During trial, the jury only heard evidence of three incident reports similar to Plaintiff’s incident. (Id. at 1157.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 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 against GCI Defendants; (2) premises liability against GCI Defendants; (3) premises liability based on landlord’s duty against GCI Defendants; (4) product liability based on strict liability against Rubbermaid, Knape, and GCI; and (5) product liability based on negligence against Rubbermaid, Knape, and GCI.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANA KLINE VS. MENTOR WORLDWIDE LLC

This case involves product liability claims of four separate Plaintiffs, who reside in four separate states, who were all implanted with allegedly defective MemoryGel Silicone Breast Implants ("MemoryGel Implants") manufactured by Mentor. Plaintiffs may join in a single action where they seek relief arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences and if any question of law or fact is common to all persons. (Code Civ. Proc. § 378.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MICHAEL THABET ET AL VS YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION ET AL

(“YMUS”), Yamaha Motor Company, LTD (“YMLTD”), Watercraft Adventures Rentals, LLC (“Watercraft”), Harrah Laughlin, LLC (“Harrah”), John Envieh (“Envieh”), an individual, and does 1-100 (“Defendants”), alleging causes of action for (1) product liability, (2) negligence, (3) breach of warranty, (4) failure to warn and (5) survival action. During this collision, defendant Envieh was allegedly driving a Yamaha watercraft behind Plaintiff, Michael Thabet’s watercraft.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

MANUELA LOPEZ ET AL. VS GORDON TRUCKING, INC.

The Complaint alleges the following causes of action against Defendant ETH: 1st cause of action – Negligence (v. all defendants); 2nd cause of action – Wrongful Death (v. all defendants); 3rd cause of action – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (v. all defendants); and 5th cause of action – Strict Product Liability (v. ETH, Palm Harbor). This lawsuit was filed after a tragic accident involving two freightliners in San Joaquin County.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

LOU BAYA OULD ROUIS, ET AL. VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Fifth Cause of Action (Negligence);Sixth Cause of Action (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress); Seventh Cause of Action (Negligent Product Liability); Eighth Cause of Action (Product Liability Manufacturing Defect); Ninth Cause of Action (Product Liability Design Defect); Tenth Cause of Action (Product Liability Failure To Warn); Eleventh Cause of Action (Negligent Product Liability); Twelfth Cause of Action (Product Liability Manufacturing Defect); Thirteenth Cause of Action (Product Liability Design

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY V. OETIKER, INC.

Plaintiff further argues that the Act’s explicit exception under Civil Code section 896(g)(3)(E) left undisturbed all product liability and common law claims arising out of defects in “manufactured products.” Plaintiff argues that Kohler in fact supports its position.

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 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 against GCI Defendants; (2) premises liability against GCI Defendants; (3) premises liability based on landlord’s duty against GCI Defendants; (4) product liability based on strict liability against Rubbermaid, Knape, and GCI; and (5) product liability based on negligence against Rubbermaid, Knape, and GCI.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

XXXXXXXXXXX VS MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA INC ET AL

The Court notes that this is a product liability case stemming from an alleged defect relating to the vehicle’s parking brake and transmission. Given the nature and complexity of the case, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s difficulty in retaining counsel to be credible and reasonable. Finally, the Court does not find Defendant’s arguments regarding potential prejudice to be persuasive enough to overcome the strong policy favoring trial on the merits. See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. 583.130.

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

GETZ V. SERRANO EL DORADO OWNER’S ASSOC.

United Security Life Company (S.D.Iowa 1973) 59 F.R.D. 44, 49 [holding that, given the language in Rule 23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (which provides that a class action may be maintained only when the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable), absent class members are not “parties to the action” and therefore “would not be liable for any costs or expenses assessed against the representative parties plaintiff”]; In re “Agent Orange” Product Liability Litigation (E.D.N.Y

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

CAMILLE DEL ROSARIO VS PETER JOSEPH CAMARILLO ET AL

Plaintiff asserts two causes of action against Volkswagen: (1) negligence, and (2) product liability, consisting of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. On August 2, 2017, Volkswagen served requests for admission (“RFA” or “RFAs”) on Plaintiff. For nine months, Volkswagen attempted to obtain responses. However, Plaintiff failed to respond. On July 1, 2018, the Court granted Volksagen’s unopposed motion to deem the requests for admissions admitted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 121     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.