What is failure to warn?

Useful Resources for Products Liability - Failure to Warn

Recent Rulings on Products Liability - Failure to Warn

1001-1025 of 1063 results

STEPHEN GUILLERMO VS SANTA BARBARA COTTAGE HOSPITAL ET AL

Failure to Warn: The elements of a failure to warn case are: 1) the defendant manufactured, distributed or sold the product; 2) the product had a potential risk that was known at the time of manufacture; 3) the potential risk presented a substantial danger when the product is used in a reasonably foreseeable way; 4) ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential risk; 5) defendant failed to adequately warn or instruct of the potential risk; 6) plaintiff was harmed ; and 7) the lack of sufficient

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2013

THE CALIFORNIA DEPT OF FORESTRY ETC VS DANA LARSEN ET AL

The original complaint included causes of action for 1) strict product liability – failure to warn and 2) negligence. On October 9, 2012, the court granted Cannell leave to amend to add a new cause of action for strict product liability – defective design – consumer expectations test. On September 21, 2012, the court ordered this case consolidated with eight other cases, with the lead case being The California Department of Forestry (Cal Fire) v. Dana Larsen, et al., #1380744.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2012

KENTON SHAIFFER ET AL VS. DURAMETALLIC CORPORATION

s motion for summary judgment and alternate motion for summary adjudication (negligent design defect, strict liability design defect, negligent failure to warn, strict liability failure to warn, and loss of consortium) are denied. As to the so-called OEM and asbestos content issues, defendant failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that Mr. Shaiffer was exposed to asbestos-containing products or materials attributable to defendant.

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2012

THE CALIFORNIA DEPT OF FORESTRY ETC VS DANA LARSEN ET AL

The existing complaint included causes of action for 1) strict product liability – failure to warn and 2) negligence. After a recent deposition of Dana Larsen, one of the individuals using the Stihl brushcutter that allegedly started the fire, Cannell seeks to add a new cause of action for strict product liability – defective design – consumer expectations test and to add clarifying background facts. Plaintiffs submit both a “red-lined” and clean copy of the proposed first amended complaint.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2012

WILLIAM THOMAS HEATON VS. NOLAN LEE ET AL

Granted without leave to amend as to the willful failure to warn allegations per Civil Code 846 and denied as to the punitive damages allegations. Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that defendant acted with a conscious disregard for the safety of others. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2012

CLIFFORD HOWARD VS. CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC. ET AL

s alternate motion for summary adjudication is granted as to issues 1 and 2 (general negligence excluding negligent failure to warn, strict liability design and manufacturing defect), denied as to issue 4 (punitive damages) and taken off calendar as to issue 3 (false representation).

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2012

BENJAMIN CARTER VS. CRON CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC. ET AL

s alternate motion for summary adjudication is granted as to issues 1 and 2 (general negligence excluding negligent failure to warn, strict liability design and manufacturing defect), denied as to issue 4 (punitive damages) and taken off calendar as to issue 3 (premises owner/contractor liability).

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2012

DOMINIC ELIA VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ET AL

s alternate motion for summary adjudication (general negligence excluding negligent failure to warn, strict liability design and manufacturing defect) is granted. Defendant satisfied its burden of production of making a prima facie case that it is entitled to prevail on its government contractor defense as to non-duty to warn claims and plaintiff has not presented admissible evidence creating a triable issue on this defense. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:45am.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2012

ALBERT LAWRENCE LEVENE VS. BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL

causes of action for false representation and intentional tort/intentional failure to warn and claim for punitive damages) and taken off calendar as to issue 4 (Michigan law for punitive damages). Defendant sustained its initial burden and plaintiffs failed to present evidence creating a triable issue whether defendant is liable for false representation, intentional tort/intentional failure to warn or punitive damages. Adjudication of issue 4 is off calendar as moot given the court?s ruling on issue 3.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2012

JOHN R. GRANT VS. CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC. ET AL

s alternate motion for summary adjudication is granted as to issues 1 and 2 (general negligence excluding negligent failure to warn, strict liability design and manufacturing defect) and off calendar as to issue 3 (premises owner/contractor liability).

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2012

GERALD SANDERS ET AL VS. CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC. ET AL

s motion for summary adjudication is granted as to issues 1 and 2 (general negligence excluding negligent failure to warn, strict liability design and manufacturing defect) and denied as to issue 3 (punitive damages). As to issues 1 and 2, defendant satisfied its burden of production of making a prima facie case that it is entitled to prevail on its government contractor defense as to non-duty to warn claims and plaintiffs?

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2012

  • Judge

    PANG LY

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

LAVON HOELMER ET AL VS. 3M COMPANY ET AL

s demurrer to the fourth cause of action for intentional tort/intentional failure to warn is sustained with 10 days leave to amend to give plaintiffs the opportunity, if they are able to do so, to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action pursuant to Civil Code sections 1708, 1709 and 1710. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:45am. A court reporter will not be provided by the court.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2012

CHERYL BENJAMIN VS. ALBAY CONSTRUCTION CO

In their complaint for personal injury caused by asbestos, plaintiffs allege claims for negligence (first cause of action), strict liability (second cause of action), false representation (third cause of action), intentional tort/intentional failure to warn (fourth cause of action), and loss of consortium (sixth cause of action). In its notice of motion, Delzer states the following grounds in support of the motion. 1. Delzer did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff, Cheryl Benjamin as a matter of law. 2.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2012

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

HAROLD GERECKE ET AL VS. ASBESTOS CORPORATION, LTD ET AL

s motion for summary adjudication is granted as to issues 1 and 2 (general negligence excluding negligent failure to warn, strict liability design and manufacturing defect), off calendar as to issues 3 and 4 (false representation and civil battery) and denied as to issue 5 (punitive damages).

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2012

MARY SUENNEN ET AL VS. CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC.

s request, and its alternate motion for summary adjudication is granted as to issues 1 and 2 (general negligence excluding negligent failure to warn, strict liability design and manufacturing defect) and denied as to issue 3 (punitive damages).

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2012

AUBREY MATTHEWS VS. THOMAS DEE ENGINEERING COMPANY ET AL

s motion for summary adjudication is granted as to issues 1 and 2 (general negligence excluding negligent failure to warn, strict liability design and manufacturing defect), denied as to issue 4 (punitive damages) and taken off calendar as to issue 3 (false representation).

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2012

CLINTON BOGAN JR. ET AL VS. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION (SUED ET AL

s motion for summary judgment is denied and its alternate motion for summary adjudication is denied as to issues 1 (negligence), 2 (strict liability and 5 (loss of consortium) and granted as to issues 3 (false representation), 4 (intentional tort/intentional failure to warn) and 6 (punitive damages). As to summary judgment and adjudication issues 1, 2 and 5, defendant sustained its initial burden of production. The deposition testimony of Mr. Bogan, Mr. Velan and Mr.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2012

JACQUE ANDERSON VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Count Two (Willful Failure to Warn) Defendant's demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiffs concede that this cause of action is not applicable to public entities. (Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. No. 2028 v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 699, 709-710.) Count Three (Dangerous Condition of Public Property) Defendant's demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2012

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HUBERT WELCH VS. THOMAS DEE ENGINEERING COMPANY

s motion for summary adjudication is granted as to issues 1 and 2 (general negligence excluding negligent failure to warn, strict liability design and manufacturing defect), denied as to issue 4 (punitive damages) and taken off calendar as to issue 3 (false representation).

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2012

  • Judge

    PANG LY

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

NOEL VASQUEZ VS ROBERT HERNANDEZ ET AL

[Complaint ¶ IT-1] Plaintiff’s causes of action are general negligence, intentional tort, premises liability (negligence, willful failure to warn, and dangerous condition of public property), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants Casino and Hernandez move to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2012

PHYLLIS KEETON VS. FAIR OAK CEMETARY DISTRICT

The complaint alleges causes of action for premises liability based on negligence, willful failure to warn and dangerous condition of public property and general negligence. Plaintiff has dismissed all causes of action except for the cause of action for premises liability based on dangerous condition of public property. The demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Premises Liability: Count One-Negligence and Count Two-Willful Failure to Warn and the Second Cause of Action for Negligence is moot.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2012

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PATRICIA ROLAND VS. GHOLAM MOHAMMADZADEH MD

Plainitff seeks leave to file a first amended complaint ("FAC"), to add 4 new causes of action (for products liability, negligence, breach of warranty and failure to warn) against defendant Edwards Lifesciences LLC, which was brought into the action as Doe defendant 2 on 11/23/11. 2. A rule of liberality is applied to requests to amend pleadings. Here, the moton shows that Defendant Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2012

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CLARK VS. TOWN OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC

Tentative Ruling The motion to strike is moot given the Court's tentative ruling on the demurrer (which is to sustain as to the second count (Willful Failure to Warn CC §846) of the 2nd Cause of Action for Premises Liability in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2012

CLARK VS. TOWN OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC

Tentative Ruling Re: Demurrer of Town Oaks Homeowners' Association to Plaintiff Erica Clark's Complaint Sustain the demurrer of Town Oaks Homeowners Association as to count two ("Willful Failure to Warn CC §846") of the 2nd Cause of Action for Premises Liability in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2012

JAMIE KROLL VS SANTA BARBARA CITY COLLEGE ET AL

CACI 1203. 3) Failure to warn, the elements of which are: a) the defendant manufactured, distributed, or sold the product; b) the product had potential risks that were known or knowable at the time of manufacture/distribution/sale; c) potential risks presented a substantial danger when the product is used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way; d) ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential risks; e) defendant failed to adequately warn of the potential risks; f) plaintiff was

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2011

  « first    1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.