What is product liability?

Useful Resources for Product Liability

Recent Rulings on Product Liability

201-225 of 3028 results

ALLEN G SHAW ET AL VS ASHLAND LLC ET AL

Here, the claim at issue is not a state statute but state common law negligence and strict product liability claims based on failure to warn. USSC asserts that courts have held that the FHSA preempts state law failure to warn claims, citing to federal district court cases in Texas, Virginia, and Louisiana. Notwithstanding these out-of-state cases, the Court finds it prudent to begin its analysis with two United States Supreme Court cases: Cipollone and Medtronic. In Cipollone v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2019

GALVEZ V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR, CO.

It contends that plaintiff cannot show strict product liability or negligence as alleged – based on manufacturing defect, design defect, or failure to warn – because there is no evidence that it was responsible for the defect at issue in the Acura 2004 MDX. According to defendant, the only evidence plaintiff has identified is “a report prepared for her insurance company that does not identify a vehicle as the fire’s cause.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2019

KAIMULOA VS. INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS LLC

Strict product liability applies to a myriad of products, including automobiles, tires, airplanes, household furniture and appliances, bottles, tools, factory machines, food, drugs, vaccines, and houses. See Greenman v Yuba Power Prods., Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, 62 (listing of products). Count three fails to plead facts that a concert held on property set up as a concert venue is a product for purposes of strict products liability.

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KAIMULOA VS. INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS LLC

Strict product liability applies to a myriad of products, including automobiles, tires, airplanes, household furniture and appliances, bottles, tools, factory machines, food, drugs, vaccines, and houses. See Greenman v Yuba Power Prods., Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, 62 (listing of products). Count three fails to plead facts that a concert held on property set up as a concert venue is a product for purposes of strict products liability.

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KAIMULOA VS. INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS LLC

Strict product liability applies to a myriad of products, including automobiles, tires, airplanes, household furniture and appliances, bottles, tools, factory machines, food, drugs, vaccines, and houses. See Greenman v Yuba Power Prods., Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, 62 (listing of products). Count three fails to plead facts that a concert held on property set up as a concert venue is a product for purposes of strict products liability.

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KAIMULOA VS. INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS LLC

Strict product liability applies to a myriad of products, including automobiles, tires, airplanes, household furniture and appliances, bottles, tools, factory machines, food, drugs, vaccines, and houses. See Greenman v Yuba Power Prods., Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, 62 (listing of products). Count three fails to plead facts that a concert held on property set up as a concert venue is a product for purposes of strict products liability.

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TOMAS AGUSTSSON; ET AL VS AGUST AGUSTSSON; ET AL

liability."

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RODOLFO M DIAZ VS ZELJKO JOVANIC

Under both a negligence and product liability theory, the Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case that the Defendant proximately caused his injuries. See Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 560; McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671. Here, Defendant met its initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RODOLFO M DIAZ VS ZELJKO JOVANIC

Under both a negligence and product liability theory, the Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case that the Defendant proximately caused his injuries. See Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 560; McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671. Here, Defendant met its initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CRAFT V. NORTH POINT SURGERY CENTER, INC.

Therefore, the complaint sufficiently alleges facts to state claims for negligence and breach of warranty product liability. Defendant points to the allegations of the prior cause of action for professional negligence, which state that defendant negligently provided medical care and treatment to plaintiff at the time she was injured. (Complaint, p. 4, GN-1.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JARED KATZ VS EQUINOX THE RELATED COMPANIES L P

BACKGROUND On August 22, 2018, Plaintiff Jared Katz (“Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint against Defendants Equinox and Related Companies, L.P. for (1) negligence, (2) premises liability, (3) product liability, (4) strict product liability, and (5) negligence per se. Trial is set for February 24, 2020. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant Equinox Fitness Santa Monica, Inc. erroneously sued as Equinox and Related Companies, L.P.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

SHAHRIAR YAZDANNIAZ VS FCA US LLC ET AL

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 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.); Negligence Per Se (Failure to Provide Access to Child Restraint System

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

    Jun 11, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BESS WILEY VS CATALINA MEDIA DEVELOPMENT, LLC

Plaintiffs have raised triable issues of material fact with respect to whether TKE was the manufacturer of the subject elevator responsible for product liability. (Response to UMF No. 26 [evidence cited therein]; Plaintiffs’ AMF Nos. 2, 3 [evidence cited therein].) Plaintiffs have also submitted evidence sufficient to raise triable issues of fact with respect to whether there was a defect in the subject elevator that was a factor in causing plaintiff Bess Wiley’s harm.

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2019

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

    Jun 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL SHABSIS VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF

In the first amended complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) medical negligence; (2) respondeat superior; (3) denial of medical care; (4) excessive force; (5) battery; (6) negligence; (7) strict product liability- failure to warn; (8) strict products liability- negligence; (9) breach of express warranty; (10) breach of implied warranty; and (11) negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2019

TOUSLEY V. STYMEIST, INC.

Defendant/Cross-Defendant Rochester moves for entry of summary judgment on the complaint and cross-complaints on the following grounds: there is no evidence of negligent design of the subject gauge or that a gauge defect caused plaintiffs’ harm; there is no evidence to support a claim for strict product liability under a theory of defective design; there is no evidence to support a claim for strict products liability under a theory of manufacturing defect; there is no evidence that Rochester failed to warn plaintiffs

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2019

SACHS VS. PACIFIC COAST OB GYN

., Plaintiffs allege causes of action for General Negligence (Second Cause of Action), Strict Product Liability – Defective Product (Third Cause of Action) and Negligent Product Liability (Fourth Cause of Action). On August 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Dismissal as to the general negligence cause of action against Minerva Surgical, Inc.

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

ANTONIO ALVARADO ET AL VS UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION

On September 19, 2018, Plaintiff Linda Alvarado, filed a First Amended Complaint, as an individual and as successor-in-interest, for: C/A 1: Negligence (§ 377.6) C/A 2: Negligence (§ 377.2) C/A 3: Wrongful Death C/A 4: Strict Product Liability Plaintiff alleges that, during Antonio’s employment as a typewriter and equipment technician and repairman, he was exposed to benzene and benzene-containing substances which caused him to develop myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), a cancer of the blood and blood forming

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2019

MIFSUD, ET AL VS. HOLIDAY HARBOR, INC.

.; (2) removing reference to Boat # 1320; (3) adding Holiday Harbor as a defendant in the Product Liability Causes of Action; and (4) removing reference to Donna Mifsud, the Loss of Consortium Cause of Action, and changing the plural form “plaintiffs” to the singular where needed. The Procedural requirements.

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2019

MIFSUD, ET AL VS. HOLIDAY HARBOR, INC.

.; (2) removing reference to Boat # 1320; (3) adding Holiday Harbor as a defendant in the Product Liability Causes of Action; and (4) removing reference to Donna Mifsud, the Loss of Consortium Cause of Action, and changing the plural form “plaintiffs” to the singular where needed. The Procedural requirements.

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2019

DANIEL RAMIREZ VS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC ET AL

On October 16, 2017, Ramirez filed a Complaint against Defendants for: (1) strict product liability, (2) strict product liability, (3) negligence, (4) negligence, (5) breach of implied warranties, (6) breach of implied warranties, (7) violations of the False Advertising Law, (8) violations of the Unfair Competition Law, (9) punitive damages, and (10) punitive damages. On April 25, 2018, CT filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to the original complaint, set for July, 7, 2018.

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DANIEL RAMIREZ VS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC ET AL

On October 16, 2017, Ramirez filed a Complaint against Defendants for: (1) strict product liability, (2) strict product liability, (3) negligence, (4) negligence, (5) breach of implied warranties, (6) breach of implied warranties, (7) violations of the False Advertising Law, (8) violations of the Unfair Competition Law, (9) punitive damages, and (10) punitive damages. On April 25, 2018, CT filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to the original complaint.

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2019

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 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.Motion to Bifurcate Defendants Glassical Creations, Inc., Steve Tseng, and Nancy Hsieh

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2019

JEREMIAH STROUD ET AL VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC ET AL

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 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.); Negligence Per Se (Failure to Provide Access to Child Restraint System

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

  « 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.