What is product liability?

Useful Resources for Product Liability

Recent Rulings on Product Liability

151-175 of 3025 results

JOHN HOFFMAN ET AL VS ABRAHAM BARISHMAN

BACKGROUND On August 3, 2017, Plaintiffs John Hoffman and Linda Hoffman filed a complaint against Defendant Abraham Barishman alleging negligence per se, negligence, and product liability for Plaintiff John Hoffman falling off a ladder.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROSENDO GONZALEZ ET AL VS LOUISVILLE LADDER INC ET AL

Meanwhile, Plaintiff filed this action on February 14, 2018 asserting the same causes of action as in the federal action for (1) negligence, (2) strict product liability – manufacturing defect, (3) strict product liability – design defect, and (4) strict product liability – failure to warn. In this case, Plaintiff sued both Louisville Ladder and Home Depot. Defendants demur to the entire lawsuit on the grounds that it is barred by the statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

SADOWSKI VS. VOLVO CAR USA LLC

Volvo moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, as to the following causes of action asserted in Plaintiff's operative Complaint: (1) Strict Product Liability-Manufacturing Defect; (2) Strict Product Liability-Design Defect; (3) Strict Product Liability-Failure to Warn; (4) Product Liability-Negligence; (5) Product Liability-Express Warranty; (6) Product Liability-Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and (7) Negligence/Negligent Repair.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

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

    Sep 11, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

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

    Sep 11, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

LANDY MIS ET AL VS ARTURO DON DIEGO ET AL

“In a product liability action, a manufacturer or seller shall not be liable if both of the following apply: (1) The product is inherently unsafe and the product is known to be unsafe by the ordinary consumer who consumes the product with the ordinary knowledge common to the community. (2) The product is a common consumer product intended for personal consumption, such as sugar, castor oil, alcohol, and butter, as identified in comment I to Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2019

SOPHIA FREESMEIER ET AL VS MAGNA INTERNATIONAL INC ET AL

Per stipulation, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 17, 2017, alleging: C/A 1: Against Defendant Iverson for Negligence C/A 2: Against Magna Defendants for Strict Product Liability C/A 3: Against Magna Defendants for Negligence (Product Defect) C/A 4: Against Magna Defendants for NIED On September 8, 2017, the stipulation to transfer complicated personal injury case to independent calendar court was granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DOUG DIRKSE VS NU VENTURE DIVING CO DBA NUVAIR

INTRODUCTION On November 7, 2017, Plaintiff Doug Dirkse (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Nu Venture Diving Co. dba Nuvair (“Nuvair”) for strict product liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranties arising out of injuries sustained on May 1, 2017 caused by a high compressor system explosion. On September 27, 2018, Nuvair filed a cross-complaint against Aerotecnica Coltri S.p.A.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MAGDALENA HENRIQUEZ VS HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL ET AL

Responding Party: Plaintiff Magdalena Henriquez (No Opposition) RELIEF REQUESTED: Sustain demurrer to Third Amended Complaint CAUSES OF ACTION: from Second Amended Complaint Negligence Medical Malpractice Strict Product Liability RULING: [No Opposition] Defendant Huntington Memorial Hospital’s UNOPPOSED Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND for the reasons stated in the moving papers, and in the court’s previous minute order of May 10, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

GONZALO MENDOZA VS. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

The disagreement here is primarily that plaintiff is seeking documents concerning other vehicles with similar problems, which defendant argues are absolutely irrelevant to this breach of warranty claim concerning this particular vehicle, as there is no product liability claim at issue here.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

JENSON VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Plaintiff's cause of action for strict product liability is based on the theories of design defect and manufacturing defect. "... Defective design may be established under two theories: (1) the consumer expectations test, which asks whether the product performed as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended and reasonably foreseeable manner; or (2) the risk/benefit test, which asks whether the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the design.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JENSON VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Plaintiff's cause of action for strict product liability is based on the theories of design defect and manufacturing defect. "... Defective design may be established under two theories: (1) the consumer expectations test, which asks whether the product performed as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended and reasonably foreseeable manner; or (2) the risk/benefit test, which asks whether the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the design.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

DOUG DIRKSE VS NU VENTURE DIVING CO DBA NUVAIR

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF On November 7, 2017, Plaintiff Doug Dirkse (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Nu Venture Diving Co. dba Nuvair (“Defendant” or “Nuvair”) and Does 1 through 20 for strict product liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VINCENT BRYANT VS WALKENHORSTS COMPANY

The same goes for a product liability claim based on the failure to warn. (See CACI 1205.) Because Plaintiff has not alleged which theory of product liability he is asserting, the Court is unable to apply the correct elements of a product liability claim. And given the allegations made, the Court is not persuaded that they are sufficient to establish any type of a product liability claim. For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege his product liability claim. IV.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DAPHNE SMITH V. GGP, INC., ET AL.

., in a product liability suit, who in the engineering department designed the defective part?” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2001) ¶ 8:474, p. 8E-18.) The authors of the treatise explain that “[u]nder former law, the entity was required only to designate 'one or more' officers or employees to testify on its behalf. This permitted considerable 'buck- passing' and 'I don't know' answers at deposition.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

SCHAEFER VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

His complaint filed in propria persona nearly two years later alleges claims against Hirsch for negligence, and claims against BMW for product liability. Hirsch answered and cross-complained against BMW for indemnity and contribution. ROA 11, 14. BMW did the same as against Hirsch. ROA 22-23. At the due-course CMC in May of 2018, the court set the case for trial in January of 2019. ROA 29-33. So far, so good. In October of 2018, Hirsch approached the court for a trial continuance. ROA 40-43.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SCHAEFER VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

His complaint filed in propria persona nearly two years later alleges claims against Hirsch for negligence, and claims against BMW for product liability. Hirsch answered and cross-complained against BMW for indemnity and contribution. ROA 11, 14. BMW did the same as against Hirsch. ROA 22-23. At the due-course CMC in May of 2018, the court set the case for trial in January of 2019. ROA 29-33. So far, so good. In October of 2018, Hirsch approached the court for a trial continuance. ROA 40-43.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SCHAEFER VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

His complaint filed in propria persona nearly two years later alleges claims against Hirsch for negligence, and claims against BMW for product liability. Hirsch answered and cross-complained against BMW for indemnity and contribution. ROA 11, 14. BMW did the same as against Hirsch. ROA 22-23. At the due-course CMC in May of 2018, the court set the case for trial in January of 2019. ROA 29-33. So far, so good. In October of 2018, Hirsch approached the court for a trial continuance. ROA 40-43.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SCHAEFER VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

His complaint filed in propria persona nearly two years later alleges claims against Hirsch for negligence, and claims against BMW for product liability. Hirsch answered and cross-complained against BMW for indemnity and contribution. ROA 11, 14. BMW did the same as against Hirsch. ROA 22-23. At the due-course CMC in May of 2018, the court set the case for trial in January of 2019. ROA 29-33. So far, so good. In October of 2018, Hirsch approached the court for a trial continuance. ROA 40-43.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SCHAEFER VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

His complaint filed in propria persona nearly two years later alleges claims against Hirsch for negligence, and claims against BMW for product liability. Hirsch answered and cross-complained against BMW for indemnity and contribution. ROA 11, 14. BMW did the same as against Hirsch. ROA 22-23. At the due-course CMC in May of 2018, the court set the case for trial in January of 2019. ROA 29-33. So far, so good. In October of 2018, Hirsch approached the court for a trial continuance. ROA 40-43.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SCHAEFER VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

His complaint filed in propria persona nearly two years later alleges claims against Hirsch for negligence, and claims against BMW for product liability. Hirsch answered and cross-complained against BMW for indemnity and contribution. ROA 11, 14. BMW did the same as against Hirsch. ROA 22-23. At the due-course CMC in May of 2018, the court set the case for trial in January of 2019. ROA 29-33. So far, so good. In October of 2018, Hirsch approached the court for a trial continuance. ROA 40-43.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

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

    Aug 30, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SCHAEFER VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

His complaint filed in propria persona nearly two years later alleges claims against Hirsch for negligence, and claims against BMW for product liability. Hirsch answered and cross-complained against BMW for indemnity and contribution. ROA 11, 14. BMW did the same as against Hirsch. ROA 22-23. At the due-course CMC in May of 2018, the court set the case for trial in January of 2019. ROA 29-33. So far, so good. In October of 2018, Hirsch approached the court for a trial continuance. ROA 40-43.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SCHAEFER VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

His complaint filed in propria persona nearly two years later alleges claims against Hirsch for negligence, and claims against BMW for product liability. Hirsch answered and cross-complained against BMW for indemnity and contribution. ROA 11, 14. BMW did the same as against Hirsch. ROA 22-23. At the due-course CMC in May of 2018, the court set the case for trial in January of 2019. ROA 29-33. So far, so good. In October of 2018, Hirsch approached the court for a trial continuance. ROA 40-43.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SCHAEFER VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

His complaint filed in propria persona nearly two years later alleges claims against Hirsch for negligence, and claims against BMW for product liability. Hirsch answered and cross-complained against BMW for indemnity and contribution. ROA 11, 14. BMW did the same as against Hirsch. ROA 22-23. At the due-course CMC in May of 2018, the court set the case for trial in January of 2019. ROA 29-33. So far, so good. In October of 2018, Hirsch approached the court for a trial continuance. ROA 40-43.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 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.