What is failure to warn?

Useful Resources for Products Liability - Failure to Warn

Recent Rulings on Products Liability - Failure to Warn

176-200 of 1067 results

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

JOHN AA DOE ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET

Plaintiffs’ operative SAC alleges fourteen causes of action as follows: (1) negligence against all Defendants, (2) negligent supervision against all Defendants, (3) negligent hiring/retention against all Defendants, (4) negligent failure to warn, train, or educate against all Defendants, (5) constructive fraud against LAUSD, Bennett, Vazquez and Gillard, (6) breach of fiduciary duty against all Defendants, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress against LAUSD, Bennett, Vazquez and Gillard, (8) sexual

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSE MIRELES VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

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 November 20, 2019, Lyondell filed a demurrer with a motion to strike.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 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

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

MARIA ARROYO VS CITY OF BELLFLOWER ET AL

Moreover, in its Motion for Summary Judgment, the City does not address Plaintiff’s alternative theories for holding the City liable for Premises Liability—negligence and failure to warn. As indicated above, and as alleged by Plaintiff in the operative pleading, there is no separate claim for general negligence being asserted against the City.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRANDO JONES ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC ET AL

“The elements of a strict products liability cause of action are a defect in the manufacturer or design of the product or a failure to warn, causation and injury.” (County of Santa Calara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

PETER WAMBAA AND LEXUS OF MARIN

(SAC 1| 17) Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) maintaining unsafe conditions on the property; and (3) willful failure to warn. He also seeks punitive damages. Defendant demurs to each cause of action, asserting it fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause (Code Civ. Proc, § 430,10(e)), or is uncertain. (§ 430.10(0.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

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

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

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

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

MUNRO V HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.

It alleges negligence, a failure to warn and a dangerous condition of public property. Accordingly, this category is relevant. However, the court finds that the scope of this category is overly broad and this category shall be limited to the parking lot at the subject premises. Defendant further argues that to the extent that this category seeks information regarding any of Home Depot’s policies or procedures, it falls within commercial/proprietary information that is privileged.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  « 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.