What is failure to warn?

Useful Rulings on Products Liability - Failure to Warn

Recent Rulings on Products Liability - Failure to Warn

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC. VS THE KROGER CO., ET AL.

., a violation of Proposition 65 for a failure to warn of the presence of specific chemicals in seaweed products). On March 23, 2018, a Consent Judgment was entered in that case which, in part, provided for the retention of jurisdiction to enforce the Consent Judgment and provided enforcement procedures to address any alleged non-compliance with the Consent Judgment. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s allegations concern conduct which is explicitly regulated under the Consent Judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

LINDA MENDOZA RAZO VS JIMMY HANG, DPT

Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate 9. Public Entity’s Liability Based on the Torts of Government Employees (Gov’t Code 815.2) RULING: The demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PAUL RICHARD V. LADERA PLAZA, ET AL.

GMC’s notice of motion does not state that it is moving on the ground of failure to warn, but its points and authorities implicitly recognize such a duty. In Jones v. Awad (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1200, cited by GMC, the court found at summary judgment that defendant homeowners owed a duty of care to the visitor plaintiff who tripped on their garage steps because they had a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and the alleged defective condition of the stairs was not open and obvious.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

JOHNSON V. FACILITRON CORPORATION, ET AL.

Furthermore, as to the counts within the premises liability cause of action of willful failure to warn and dangerous condition of property, it is clear from the Plaintiffs’ allegations that the causes of their injuries are the acts of other participants and/or spectators, not conditions of the property. The court therefore sustains FACILITRON’s demurrer to the willful failure to warn and dangerous condition of property counts, and grants its motion to strike the punitive damage allegations.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

JAMES R MELVILLE ET AL VS OLYMPUS AMERICA INC ET AL

., Parisa Azizad-Pinto, M.D. and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the 1AC alleges negligent failure to warn and medical malpractice in the fifth and sixth causes of action, and loss of consortium on behalf of Plaintiff Nadine Sanchez in the seventh cause of action. Case law has imposed the “good cause” requirement for subpoena document requests propounded upon non-parties, that is, the propounding party must articulate specific facts relating to each category of materials sought to justify production.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 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

    Jul 08, 2020

RENATO ROBISON VS MARIANAH CREVIOSERAT

In Internet Brands, the plaintiff’s action was based on the defendant’s alleged failure-to-warn plaintiff of information it had obtained from an outside source suggesting two individuals were targeting plaintiff for sexual assault, and that in so doing, defendant breached a duty to notify plaintiff. (Internet Brands at 850-851.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

EASBEY V. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, ET AL.

[SS##23, 24, 25] The negligence cause of action and the negligence and failure to warn counts in the premises liability cause of action are alleged jointly against SCE and PCTE. [SS##26, 29] In the general negligence cause of action, plaintiff alleges that “defendants negligently, recklessly, carelessly, or any combination thereof, failed to use due care in the inspection, maintenance and pruning of the subject tree and to identify a risk of a foreseeable danger posed by the subject tree.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

CYNTHIA GAREY, ET AL. VS ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ET AL.

The complaint alleges products liability based on negligence, a failure to warn and a manufacturing defect, a breach of the implied warranty, negligence, wrongful death, and a survival action. The complaint arises from an allegedly defective implantable cardiac defibrillator that caused Philip Garey’s death on August 22, 2017. On March 13, 2020, Defendants Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Laboratories, Inc. filed applications to admit Andrew Tauber and Daniel L. Ring as counsel pro hac vice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

LIZA KATHRYN WOMACK VS FIRST ACCESS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, ET AL.

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) negligent hiring/retention, (3) negligent supervision/failure to warn, (4) negligent undertaking, (5) breach of contract, (6) breach of implied contract, (7) breach of fiduciary duty, (8) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (9) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and (10) wrongful death.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

CHERYL COLE VS. RICK HAMPTON

Products Liability “‘The elements of a strict products liability cause of action are a defect in the manufacture or design of the product or a failure to warn, causation, and injury.’ [Citations.] More specifically, plaintiff must ordinarily show: ‘(1) the product is placed on the market; (2) there is knowledge that it will be used without inspection for defect; (3) the product proves to be defective; and (4) the defect causes injury ….’ [Citation]” (Nelson v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

BRAZIL A. ALLEN VS WARREN W. VALDRY, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (2) Battery; (3) Negligence – Premises Liability/Failure to Warn; (4) Nuisance, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (6) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, (7) Breach of Contract, (8) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, and (9) Fraudulent Concealment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP INC VS VALU MART CO

Release Provision Plaintiff purports to release claims arising from actual or alleged violations of Proposition 65 or any other statutory or common law claim regarding the Covered Products manufactured, distributed, or sold by Defendant through the effective date regarding any actual or failure to warn about exposure to the listed chemicals in the Covered Products. (Consent Judgment § 5.1.) This release is specifically limited to Defendant’s Covered Products and claims presented in this lawsuit.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Laura A. Seigle or Elizabeth Allen White

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MILAN BACOKA SR ET AL VS BEST BUY CO ET AL

Nowhere in the FAC is a theory of liability based on a failure to warn alleged. Rather, the FAC alleges only an “injury of such nature that it would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligent inspection and/or negligent installation.” (FAC ¶ 54 (emphasis added).) Moreover, nowhere in the sixth cause of action do Plaintiffs allege that any duty was breached by failing to warn B3D in completing installation. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now allege such a theory in opposition.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

ARTUR MANUKYAN VS YS PROPERTIES LLC

L-3 (Count Two) alleges Willful Failure to Warn pursuant to Civil Code §846 but is not applicable and there are no facts to support it.” (Motion, p. 2:8-10.) In opposition, Plaintiff argues that “Defendant’s motion violates Code of Civil Procedure §437(c)(f)(1).” (Opp., p. 2:2.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP INC VS VIVA 99 ET AL

Release Provision Plaintiff purports to release claims arising from actual or alleged violations of Proposition 65 or any other statutory or common law claim regarding the Covered Products manufactured, distributed, or sold by Defendant through the effective date regarding any actual or failure to warn about exposure to the listed chemicals in the Covered Products. (Consent Judgment § 5.1.) This release is specifically limited to Defendant’s Covered Products and claims presented in this lawsuit.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Laura A. Seigle or Elizabeth Allen White

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CONSUMER PROTECTION GROUP, LLC VS HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC.

“In a case alleging failure to warn, a settlement that provides for the giving of a clear and reasonable warning, where there had been no warning provided prior to the sixty-day notice, for an exposure that appears to require a warning, is presumed to confer a significant benefit on the public” so as to justify the award of attorneys’ fees. (11 CCR § 3201(b)(1); CCP § 1021.5.) In Consumer Defense Group v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARK ANTHONY RAMOS ET AL VS ANZO NOBEL COATINGS INC ET AL

Given that it is a failure to warn or disclose hazards that forms the basis for Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages, Sansher argues that Ramos’s failure to read the labels requires dismissal of his claim for punitive damages. (Complaint ¶¶ 59, 74, 97.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

DON A YOUNG VS EAGLERIDER INC ET AL

Products Liability “The elements of a strict products liability cause of action are a defect in the manufacture or design of the product or a failure to warn, causation, and injury.” (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.) A manufacturing defect exists when the product differs from the manufacturer’s intended result or when the product differs from “ostensibly identical units of the same product line” when the product left the defendant’s possession.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BERNARDINO GARCIA ET AL. VS ROSALIA CORONADO ET AL.

Since Loo had no typically definable relationship to Koepke, it is difficult to label her failure to warn as morally blameworthy; and the consequences to the community of imposing this sort of duty on people seem of doubtful benefit. On the other hand, the policy of preventing future harm favors imposition of a duty, and the burden on the defendant Loo to have made a brief telephone call to Koepke seems very minor.” Ibid @1453.

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

Genmar Industries, Inc. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1223, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 305 [complaint alleged failure to warn of manufacturing defect in boat; plaintiff could not avoid summary judgment by showing failure to warn based on post- manufacture discovery of defect]; Danieley v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

Genmar Industries, Inc. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1223, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 305 [complaint alleged failure to warn of manufacturing defect in boat; plaintiff could not avoid summary judgment by showing failure to warn based on post- manufacture discovery of defect]; Danieley v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

MILLER V. EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Plaintiffs filed a Judaica Council Form Complaint for wrongful death asserting causes of action for general negligence and premises liability premised upon defendant El Dorado Irrigation District’s (EID) alleged failure to warn that an open, exposed drainage pipe was dangerous, which resulted in plaintiffs’ decedents death when he fell into a unsecured and open drainage pipe.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

LAWHON VS IT IS WHAT IT IS-II LLC

., The complaint he filed in September of 2019 names the retailer as well as the battery wholesaler, and alleges claims for negligence, strict liability - design defect, strict liability - manufacturing defect, and strict liability - failure to warn. Plaintiff has apparently had a hard time serving the battery supplier. ROA 11-17, 28.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 36     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.