What is failure to warn?

Useful Resources for Products Liability - Failure to Warn

Recent Rulings on Products Liability - Failure to Warn

151-175 of 1061 results

DELINIA R PINZON ET AL VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

But the CSMC Parties argue that their cross-complaint and their right to indemnity would be extinguished if the motion for good faith settlement is heard before the CSMC Parties can conduct discovery on the failure to warn claim. The CSMC Parties contend that the depositions would lead to information that would show that the St. Jude Parties’ liability outweighs the good faith settlement’s nominal amount. The St.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

MARGARITA BENITEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 250

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges six causes of action for: (1) negligence, (2) strict liability – failure to warn, (3) strict liability – design defect, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) breach of implied warranties, and (6) loss of consortium. On February 15, 2019, Plaintiff named Ecolab, Inc. (“Ecolab”) as a doe defendant.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

CHASE HOLLOWAY ET AL VS MARUICHI AMERICAN CORPORATION

Strict Products Liability for Failure to Warn (v. Konecranes) MSJ Defendant Maruichi moves for summary judgment on the ground that the action is barred by the exclusivity provisions of worker’s compensation. A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met its burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established. (CCP 437c(p)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JANE HC DOE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GAURDIAN AD LITEM KIM S. VS TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint for (1) negligence, (2) negligent supervision, (3) negligent failure to warn, train, or educate, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) gender violence (Civil Code section 52.4), (6) sexual battery (Civil Code section 1708.5), and (7) sexual assault. On March 13, 2020, Defendant TUSD filed the instant demurrer to FAC and motion to strike.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COATS VS. CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS

Indeed, the crux of Plaintiffs’ argument is not that Moving Defendants affirmatively committed any action, but instead Plaintiffs argue that Moving Defendants’ failure to warn Jensen about the no retaliation/no contact order that they gave to Moore on July 3, 2017 resulted in her unfortunate death or contributed to the circumstances leading up to it.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

COATS VS. CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS

Indeed, the crux of Plaintiffs’ argument is not that Moving Defendants affirmatively committed any action, but instead Plaintiffs argue that Moving Defendants’ failure to warn Jensen about the no retaliation/no contact order that they gave to Moore on July 3, 2017 resulted in her unfortunate death or contributed to the circumstances leading up to it.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

ROCHEL DISI VS TAD TANOURA M D ET AL

On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) for (1) medical malpractice, (2) medical battery, (3) medical malpractice – lack of informed consent, (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect, (5) negligent design, (6) negligence, (7) strict products liability – failure to warn, and (8) negligent products liability – failure to warn. Biosphere and Merit are named defendants in the fourth through eighth causes of action. I.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

GEORGE T KELLY ET AL VS CHILDRENS HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRODUCT LIABILITY -- FAILURE TO WARN Plaintiffs assert the seventh cause of action for product liability -- failure to warn, against defendants Bellicum, CHLA, Kapoor, Pulsipher, McFarren, Abdel-Azim, and Dietz. Defendants Bellicum, CHLA, Kapoor, Pulsipher, McFarren, Abdel-Azim, and Dietz demur to the seventh cause of action for product liability -- failure to warn.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

S, filed a complaint against Torrance Unified School District and Dalan Anthony Johnson for (1) negligence, (2) negligent supervision, (3) negligent failure to warn train or educate, (4) constructive fraud (Civil Code 1573), (5) IIED, (6) sexual abuse and harassment in the educational environment (Education Code 220), (7) general violence, (8) sexual battery, and (9) sexual assault.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

FRANTZ CLEANERS INC ET AL VS ESTATE OF CHARLES O KILM3ER ET

Contribution Equitable Indemnity Continuing Trespass Continuing Nuisance Declaratory Relief Strict Liability Based on Defective Design Strict Liability Based on Failure to Warn Negligence On May 9, 2019, a “Joint Stipulation and Order Substituting Successor-in-Interest Helen Kay Richards for Deceased Plaintiff Frank P. Richards and Granting Plaintiffs Leave to File First Amended Complaint” was filed. On September 6, 2019, Chem was dismissed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

AARON NG ET AL VS LEXMAR DISTRIBUTION INC ET AL

Plaintiffs filed the operative first amended complaint on June 20, 2018 alleging causes of action for (1) negligence/wrongful death, (2) strict products liability, (3) negligent failure to warn, (4) negligent design and manufacture, (5) negligent (post sale), (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BEATRIZ VALDEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 200

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on February 7, 2017, and a FAC on December 24, 2019, alleging six causes of action: Negligence Strict Liability — Failure to Warn Strict Liability — Design Defect Fraudulent Concealment Breach of Implied Warranties Loss of Consortium On December 5, 2019, this Court sustained Defendant Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC, successor-in-interest to Sasol North America Inc. (Doe 3) (“Sasol”)’s Demurrer to the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

ROBERT JAMES ROMERO VS CITY OF MANTECA, A PUBLIC ENTITY ET AL.

Accordingly, a claim for willful failure to warn under Civil Code section 846 cannot be maintained against a California public entity like City. Plaintiff provides no argument in his opposition addressing how his Complaint can be amended to state a cause of action against City under Civil Code section 846. For this reason, City’s demurrer to Count Two for Willful Failure to Warn contained in the First COA is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to City.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

JANE IL DOE ET AL VS BRIGHTSTAR RESIDENTIAL INCORPORATED INC

., Reuben Alcala, Norlan Machado (Doe 1), and Mary Machado (Doe 2) for sexual battery, sexual assault, sexual harassment, gender violence, IIED, negligence, negligent supervision, negligent hiring and/or retention, negligent failure to warn, train, or educate, and constructive fraud. On December 5, 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On January 2, 2020, judgment was entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

CHARLES AN ET AL VS SK CHEMICALS ET AL

Defendants also argue Plaintiffs cannot prove liability for a failure to warn because Defendants had no way of knowing that the humidifier disinfectant was dangerous and the technology was the state of the art at the time of distribution. DISCUSSION For each claim in the complaint, the defendant moving for adjudication must satisfy the initial burden of proof by showing that one or more elements of a cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to a cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOHN PHAM VS HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, A BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM, ET AL.

BACKGROUND On December 11, 2019, plaintiff John Pham filed a complaint against Hyundai Motor Company and Hyundai Motor America for (1) strict products liability – design and manufacturing defects, (2) strict products liability – failure to warn, (3) products liability – negligence, and (4) products liability – breach of implied and express warranties.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MUKERGEE VS PARKVIEW COMMUNITY

Premises Liability (Count 1 for negligence in the ownership, maintenance, management, and operation of Parkview and Count 2 for Willful Failure to Warn under Civil Code section 846); 2. General Negligence; 3. Premises Liability (Count 1 for negligence in the ownership, maintenance, management, and operation of Parkview and Count 2 for Willful Failure to Warn under Civil Code section 846); 4. General Negligence. Defendant then filed a demurrer and motion to strike.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

BARBARA PIETROWSKI VALDEZ ET AL VS SMITH & NEPHEW INC ET AL

Second Cause of Action – Strict Liability for Failure to Warn Strict liability for failure to warn requires: (1) the manufacture of a product; (2) that was defective; (3) and a cause of injury to the plaintiff; and (4) plaintiff’s injury resulted from a use of the product that was reasonably foreseeable. (Fortman v. Hemco, Inc. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 241, 255.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

SUZANA AREZINA VS WATSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC ET AL

[Citations] To establish strict liability for failure to warn, the plaintiff must prove the defendant ‘did not adequately warn of a particular risk that was known or knowable in light of the generally recognized and prevailing best scientific and medical knowledge available at the time of manufacture and distribution. . . . [T]he reasonableness of the defendant's failure to warn is immaterial.’ [Citations]” (Id. at p. 1304.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

JOSEPH SORIA VS MILLERCOORS, LLC, ET AL.

Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action (i.e., Strict Products Liability—Design Defect and Strict Products Liability—Failure to Warn, Respectively) Plaintiff has not alleged that Alltech is an entity within the stream of commerce relating to the subject sight glass or yeast storage system. Again, Plaintiff has alleged that Alltech was merely hired to “perform the yeast transfer work.” (Id., ¶13(c).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

MARVIN TARNOL, ET AL. VS UNITED FABRICARE SUPPLY, INC.

The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) states six causes of action for: 1) negligence; 2) strict liability – failure to warn; 3) strict liability – design defect; 4) fraudulent concealment; 5) breach of implied warranties; and 6) loss of consortium. The SAC alleges that Marvin worked at dry cleaning facilities from 1950 through 1980. Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

ANTHONY J. UGLIANO VS ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., ET AL.

A failure to warn claim based on a manufacturer’s failure to file adverse event reports with the FDA is not subject to express or implied preemption. (Coleman, supra, at 428.) Next, “California law imposes a parallel requirement under the common law strict liability tort of failure to warn.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

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

FAILURE TO WARN PSC moves for adjudication of Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for strict products liability under a failure to warn theory. “To be liable in California, even under a strict liability theory, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's failure to warn was a substantial factor in causing his or her injury. The natural corollary to this requirement is that a defendant is not liable to a plaintiff if the injury would have occurred even if the defendant had issued adequate warnings.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

TERESO FRIAS ET AL VS BASF CORPORATION ET AL

The operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) was filed on 5/10/17 and asserts claims for 1) negligence; 2) strict liability—failure to warn; 3) strict liability—design defect; 4) breach of implied warranties; 5) fraudulent concealment; and 6) breach of implied warranties.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

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

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 43     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.