What is negligent products liability?

Useful Rulings on Products Liability – Negligent Products Liability

Recent Rulings on Products Liability – Negligent Products Liability

ZEKRIA V. MIRAMAR LABS

., Inc. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 432; see also FAC ¶¶ 42-55.) 2nd cause of action, negligent products liability. The FAC alleges facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. The FAC alleges duty, breach, and causation. (See Gonzalez v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 780, 793; see also FAC ¶¶ 58-66.) The FAC does not clearly establish the learned intermediary affirmative defense on its face. (See Stella v. Asset Management Consultants, Inc., (2017) 8 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

MILAN BACOKA SR ET AL VS BEST BUY CO ET AL

The Complaint asserted causes of action for res ipsa loquitur, negligent products liability, and negligence against Best Buy, and contended that the flex line was not properly connected to the washing machine, causing a leak. (UMF 3.) Among Plaintiffs’ claims against Best Buy was the allegation that the washing machine was negligently installed. (UMF 4.) The FAC contains similar allegations. (UMF 5.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC. V. STYLE-LINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

In its opposition Style-Line claims that its “equitable indemnity claims are based on strict and negligent products liability,” citing the FACC at paragraph 26. However, the FACC makes no mention of products liability, strict or negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

ARACELI SICKLER VS ISLAND PACIFIC SUPERMARKETS INC ET AL

On July 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging four causes of action: (1) strict products liability; (2) negligent products liability; (3) warranty of merchantability; and (4) negligent misrepresentation. On January 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative FAC alleging the same causes of action. On August 8, 2019, this court granted Defendants’ motion to strike punitive damages from the FAC with 30 days’ leave to amend. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

TU THI VO ET AL VS MIGHTY U S A INC

The complaint alleges strict and negligent products liability, breach of express and implied warranties, and negligence for a milling machine malfunctioning and killing Decedent Tuan Anh Cao on January 20, 2017. On November 1, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint to name Defendants Mighty Enterprises, Inc., Machine Group, Inc., Acromil Corporation, and She Hong Industrial Co. LTD. On January 17, 2019, the Court dismissed Defendant Acromi Corporatioon without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

CLAUDIA VENEGAS VS SAN PEDRO FISH AND OYSTER CORPORATION

PARTY’S REQUEST Plaintiff asks the Court to grant leave for Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”) to allege a third cause of action for strict and negligent products liability against Doe Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

ROCHEL DISI VS TAD TANOURA M D ET AL

., and Merit Bioacquisition Co. for medical malpractice, medical battery, medical malpractice – lack of informed consent, strict products liability – design and/or manufacturing defect, negligent products liability – failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NUNEZ ET AL. V. MAZDA MOTOR CORP. ET AL.

Motion: Motions for Summary Adjudication by Mazda Motor Corporation and Mazda North America Operations Tentative Ruling: To grant Mazda Motor of America, Inc. dba Mazda North American Operations’ (“MNAO”) motion for summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages and second cause of action for negligent products liability. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(f)(1).) To deny Mazda Motor Corporation’ (“MC”) motion for summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

PETRONILA GONZALEZ VS NUTRIBULLET LEAN LLC

BACKGROUND On February 1, 2018, Plaintiff Petronila Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Nutribullet Lean, LLC, who subsequently represented itself as Defendant Nutribullet, LLC, (“Defendant”) alleging strict and negligent products liability and negligence for injuries sustained when removing an extractor blade from a Nutribullet on December 9, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

PEGGY KOGA, ET AL. VS LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND, GMBH, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

The complaint alleges strict products liability for a design defect, a manufacturing defect, and a failure to warn, as well as alleging negligent products liability and medical malpractice for the death of Peter Koga, which was caused from complications that resulted from an open-heart surgery and use of a Stockert Heater-Cooler System 3T on April 25, 2019. On September 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an application to admit Robin A.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

YVONNE KOR VS MCDONALD'S 16007, ET AL.

The Court finds Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for negligent products liability. Plaintiff’s allegations show that facts have been alleged to support each element of negligent products liability. Demurring Defendant chooses to focus its attention on the title of Plaintiff’s second cause of action in the demurrer, as opposed to the substance of the allegations in this cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MICHAEL FARHAT, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) strict products liability; (2) negligent products liability; (3) breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act; (4) breach of implied warranty under California Commercial Code, Section 2314; and (5) negligence (wrongful death and personal injuries).

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

ALMIR MANSILLA VS HAAS AUTOMATION INC ET AL

Negligent Products Liability The doctrine of primary assumption of risk does not apply to claims for negligent products liability. (See Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 547, 562-565 (explaining why primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to claims for strict products liability); see also Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1300-1302 (applying the ruling in Milwaukee to products liability based on negligence).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JAMES NICHOLS VS WALGREEN CO., ET AL.

Demurrer – Negligent Products Liability A cause of action for negligent products liability requires a showing that the defendant negligently caused a defect in a product, the defect existed when it left the defendant’s hands, and the defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries. (Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 379, 383.) A failure to warn can constitute a defect. (Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 717).

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2019

BEATRIZ CASTANO BARDAWILL VS DOG HAUS LLC

Defendant is entitled to Summary Adjudication of Plaintiff’s Cause of Action for Negligent Products Liability Because PPC was Not Negligent in its Design of the Table Defendant is entitled to Summary Adjudication of Plaintiff’s Cause of Action for General Negligence because PCC Did Not Breach a Legal Duty Motion is DENIED. Defendant PPC argues that the plaintiff will be unable to show that defendant acted unreasonably in its design of the table.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

MIREYA AVILES MORALES VS CASA HERRERA INC ET AL

., Circle Foods LLC and Does 1-100 for: Strict Products Liability Negligent Products Liability On February 25, 2019, this action was transferred from the personal injury hub (Department 3) to this department. A Status Conference is set for August 7, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MARTHA MACHADO VS HELEN GRACE CHOCOLATES LLC ET AL

Plaintiff brought causes of action for: General Negligence; Strict Products Liability; Negligent Products Liability; Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; Fraudulent Concealment; and Battery. On December 20, 2018, this court approved a good faith settlement between Plaintiff and Defendants Helen Grace Chocolates and BFC Financial Corporation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2019

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LILY DEUTSCH ET AL VS POLY & BARK ET AL

(collectively, “Defendants”) for strict products liability, negligent products liability, breach of warranty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of a September 7, 2017 incident where a sculpture coffee table purchased from Defendants broke, causing glass to fall on top of Lily, who was three years old at the time of the incident. Defendants move for summary adjudication as to cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. II.

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

ERIK HOWELL VS LG CHEM LTD ET AL

The complaint, filed February 21, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) strict products liability; and (2) negligent products liability. B. Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order On December 28, 2018, LG Chem, Ltd. (“LG”) filed a motion to quash Plaintiff’s service of summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s opposition and LG’s reply brief. On February 22, 2019 and February 25, 2019, LG filed 2 motions for protective order.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SACHS VS. PACIFIC COAST OB GYN

Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action for Negligent Products Liability fails as a matter of law because it is expressly preempted by federal law, including by not limited to, 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) 3. Plaintiffs' failure to warn claims fail because they are barred by the Learned Intermediary Doctrine.

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

ERIK HOWELL VS LG CHEM LTD ET AL

The complaint, filed February 21, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) strict products liability; and (2) negligent products liability. Counsel Marc Williams and Rachel Hedley apply to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendant LG Chem, Ltd. Plaintiff filed a Response to the application. PRO HAC VICE DISCUSSION 1.

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROCHEL DISI VS TAD TANOURA M D ET AL

Id., ¶32. 6th cause of action for negligence, 7th cause of action for strict products liability – failure to warn, and 8th cause of action for negligent products liability – failure to warn Defendants argue that they have no duty to plaintiff based on the Learned Intermediary Doctrine.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARK WOODSON VS PEDDINGHAUS CORPORATION ET AL

The Court agrees that, based on the foregoing, Peddinghaus is not liable for negligent products liability. Plaintiff’s claim for negligence against Peddinghaus, however, goes beyond negligent products liability, as Peddinghaus concedes in the motion. Rather, Plaintiff also alleges Peddinghaus negligently installed the machine in the first place.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

LOUIS VELASCO VS THE VAPORS ET AL

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Strict Products Liability Negligent Products Liability Loss of Consortium A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met his 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

    Jan 28, 2019

SCOTT V. MERCHANTS LANDSCAPE SERVICES

With respect to Issue Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant requests summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims for “strict and negligent products liability” and “breach of express and implied warranty. The court notes the that the First Amended Complaint (FAC), filed on 11-7-17, designates these claims as counts within fourth cause of action (“Products Liability) against Defendant. It is unclear whether Defendant’s Notice seeks adjudication of all theories within the fourth cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2019

1 2 3     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.