What is negligent products liability?

Useful Resources for Products Liability – Negligent Products Liability

Rulings on Products Liability – Negligent Products Liability

LUIS TISNADO VS HYTROL CONVEYOR COMPANY INC ET AL

Negligent Products Liability Fletchline argues a claim for negligent products liability based on a negligent design/manufacture theory or a negligent failure to warn theory can only be asserted against a designer/manufacturer/retailer. Plaintiff argues, in opposition, that Fletchline was essentially a “manufacturer,” as it was the entity that physically put the product together.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2017

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

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

MARIA DE JESUS LUNA VS. LANDINI USA

Moving Defendant has met its burden under CCP 437c(o)(2) of showing that Plaintiffs cannot establish the elements of a cause of action for strict products liability, negligent products liability and/or negligence. (See Material Fact Nos. 1-24, which the court finds have been established.) By way of opposition, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of raising a triable issue of material fact. No evidence supports a defect in the manufacture of the tractor.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2018

  • 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

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

JORGE ROMO VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA ET AL

As indicated by Hyundai in Reply, “although Plaintiff only pled two counts against [Hyundai] (strict products liability and negligent products liability), each of the above claims is actually a separate cause of action for summary adjudication purposes.” (Reply p.2, fn. 1.)

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MAHMOUD VS. CRAFT

Simply because Defendant may not have had the authority to rent the subject vehicle does not support causes of action for strict liability, negligent products liability, or breach of warranty. Although creative, Plaintiff is attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole. The Court cannot ascertain at this time whether the omission of certain defendants from the first complaint renders this Complaint a sham. RFJN is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2018

SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC VS WESTERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY COMPANY

Valley asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (3) strict products liability-manufacturing defect [count 1]; (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect [count 2]; (5) negligent products liability [count 1]; (6) negligent products liability [count 2]; and (7) equitable indemnity. (FAC, 8-49.) This demurrer challenges only the third and fourth causes of action. Western argues that S.C.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC VS WESTERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY COMPANY

Valley asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (3) strict products liability-manufacturing defect [count 1]; (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect [count 2]; (5) negligent products liability [count 1]; (6) negligent products liability [count 2]; and (7) equitable indemnity. (FAC, 8-49.) This demurrer challenges only the third and fourth causes of action. Western argues that S.C.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC VS WESTERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY COMPANY

Valley asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (3) strict products liability-manufacturing defect [count 1]; (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect [count 2]; (5) negligent products liability [count 1]; (6) negligent products liability [count 2]; and (7) equitable indemnity. (FAC, 8-49.) This demurrer challenges only the third and fourth causes of action. Western argues that S.C.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC VS WESTERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY COMPANY

Valley asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (3) strict products liability-manufacturing defect [count 1]; (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect [count 2]; (5) negligent products liability [count 1]; (6) negligent products liability [count 2]; and (7) equitable indemnity. (FAC, 8-49.) This demurrer challenges only the third and fourth causes of action. Western argues that S.C.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

WILLIAM DICKENS VS. STATEWIDE SEATING & GRANDSTANDS INC

While causation is an element for all causes of action, the Motion does not address the allegations in the negligence, negligent products liability and premises liability causes of action that plaintiff was seeking damages for medical costs, pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost wages and lost companionship all on behalf of plaintiff and as a survivor of Mr. Dickens.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WILLIAM DICKENS VS. STATEWIDE SEATING & GRANDSTANDS INC

While causation is an element for all causes of action, the Motion does not address the allegations in the negligence, negligent products liability and premises liability causes of action that plaintiff was seeking damages for medical costs, pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost wages and lost companionship all on behalf of plaintiff and as a survivor of Mr. Dickens.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WILLIAM DICKENS VS. STATEWIDE SEATING & GRANDSTANDS INC

While causation is an element for all causes of action, the Motion does not address the allegations in the negligence, negligent products liability and premises liability causes of action that plaintiff was seeking damages for medical costs, pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost wages and lost companionship all on behalf of plaintiff and as a survivor of Mr. Dickens.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARTHA MACHADO VS HELEN GRACE CHOCOLATES LLC ET AL

Plaintiff brought causes of action for: (1) General Negligence; (2) Strict Products Liability; (3) Negligent Products Liability; (4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (5) Fraudulent Concealment; and (6) Battery. Machado has reached a settlement with defendants HGC and BFC and applies for a determination of good faith. II. Standard California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(b) allows a party to request determination by the court that a settlement was made in good-faith.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KIMBERLY CAMPBELL VS GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY ET AL

The first amended complaint alleges personal injuries, strict product liability, negligent products liability, and negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2018

KAREN LEE VS SOUTHLAND MEDICAL LLC;, ET AL.

Accordingly, demurrer is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend. 3RD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE: Negligence is duplicative of the 3rd cause of action for Negligent Products Liability. Therefore, Plaintiff is ordered to merge her negligence allegations into the 2nd cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

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

LIN JOON OH ET AL VS TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ET AL

On November 15, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting the following causes of action: (1) Negligence/Premises Liability; (2) Negligence Per Se; (3) Wrongful Death (based on negligent products liability); (4) Wrongful Death (by Plaintiffs in their individual capacities); and (5) Survivor Action.

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2017

  • 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

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

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

1 2 3 4     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.