What is strict products liability?

Useful Rulings on Strict Products Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict Products Liability

JOSEPH SORIA VS MILLERCOORS, LLC, ET AL.

(“Alltech”), Pacific, PolyOne Corporation, Marinela Hendon (“Hendon”) and Does 1-100 for: General Negligence Premises Liability Negligent Undertaking Strict Products Liability—Design Defect Strict Products Liability—Failure to Warn On November 10, 2020, a “Stipulation of Plaintiff Joseph Soria and Defendants MillerCoors, LLC, MillerCoors USA, LLC, Molson Coors Brewing Company, and Marinela Hendon to Dismiss MillerCoors USA, LLC, Molson Coors Brewing Company, and Marinela Hendon” was filed.

  • Hearing

CHUCKRID HUTAYANA VS YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on January 02, 2018, alleging five (5) causes of action sounding in: (1) Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; (3) Strict Products Liability (Design Defect); (4) Strict Liability (Failure to Warn); and (5) Products Liability (Negligence). PRESENTATION: The instant motion was received by the Court on March 13, 2020, the opposition was received on March 24, 2020, and the reply was received on March 30, 2020.

  • Hearing

MICHAEL ALLEN DENNY VS TUUYEN NGUYEN, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s counsel attests the proposed First Amended Complaint adds five causes of action: (1) Strict Products Liability (design defect); (2) Strict Products Liability (manufacturing defect); (3) Strict Products Liability (failure to warn); (4) Negligence (design; sale; manufacturing); (5) Negligence (Failure to warn). As part of the motion, Plaintiff includes a copy of the proposed amended pleading. (CRC Rule 3.1324(a).) The proposed First Amended Complaint is attached as Exhibit 6.

  • Hearing

HIGGINSON VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

[T]he economic loss rule allows a plaintiff to recover in strict products liability in tort when a product defect causes damage to 'other property,' that is, property other than the product itself. The law of contractual warranty governs damage to the product itself." Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 473, 483.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOSEPH SORIA VS MILLERCOORS, LLC, ET AL.

(“Alltech”), Pacific, PolyOne Corporation (“PolyOne”), Marinela Hendon (“Hendon”) and Does 1-100 for: General Negligence Premises Liability Negligent Undertaking Strict Products Liability—Design Defect Strict Products Liability—Failure to Warn On November 10, 2020, a “Stipulation of Plaintiff Joseph Soria and Defendants MillerCoors, LLC, MillerCoors USA, LLC, Molson Coors Brewing Company, and Marinela Hendon to Dismiss MillerCoors USA, LLC, Molson Coors Brewing Company, and Marinela Hendon” was filed.

  • Hearing

MARIA DEL CARMEN VALDOVINOS ROSALES, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

The authorities Bigler-Engler cites, however, involve strict products liability, not fraud. Bigler-Engler has not provided any reason to apply this duty to the fraud cause of action here, and we are aware of none. Products liability law involves a set of circumstances, elements, and doctrines that are independent from, and not directly applicable to, fraud. The duties underlying each cannot simply be applied to the other. [Citation.] (Bigler-Engler, supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at 311-12, (original italics).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EDUARDO SALAZAR ET AL VS TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA INC ET A

Plaintiffs allege negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and strict products liability in the complaint for injuries sustained on July 6, 2017 from the failing of Plaintiffs’ brakes in a leased vehicle. On July 26, 2018, the Court entered default against Defendant Toyota of Downtown L.A. On September 21, 2018, the Court set aside the July 26, 2018 default entered against Defendant Toyota of Downtown L.A.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

1536 BLUE JAY WAY, LLC, ET AL. VS CRAIG R. WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on April 1, 2020, alleging ten causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of express warranties; (3) breach of implied warranties; (4) negligence; (5) negligence per se; (6) negligence; (7) strict products liability: design defect; (8) strict products liability: manufacturing defect; (9) strict products liability: warning defect; and (10) breach of express and implied warranties.

  • Hearing

IRMA LORENA VIZCARRA ET AL VS TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA INC

Causation is an element for all three of plaintiffs’ causes of action for products liability, breach of warranty (express and implied), and strict liability. Because it is the dispositive issue, the court addresses causation alone. Plaintiffs allege that the vehicle decedent was driving contained a defective airbag system which caused decedent’s death.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

GRACE ALBA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SYLVIA ALBA VS SPARKLETTS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

(erroneously sued as Crystal Mountain) and Does 1-50 for: Negligence Negligence—Products Liability Strict Products Liability On June 19, 2019, DS Services and Costco filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Cross-Defendants Crystal Mountain International Limited and Roes 1-10 for: Implied Indemnity Contribution Express Indemnity Breach of Contract Declaratory Relief On October 3, 2019, this action was transferred from the personal injury hub (Department 5) to this department.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

RAYMOND SAFARIAN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

In Robinson, the Supreme Court recognized that “the economic loss rule allows a plaintiff to recover in strict products liability in tort when a product defect causes damage to ‘other property,’ that is, property other than the product itself. The law of contractual warranty governs damage to the product itself.” Robinson, 34 Cal. 4th at 989 (quoting Jimenez v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 473, 482-83 (2002) (emphasis in Robinson).

  • Hearing

JOSE VILLANUEVA VS LKQ BEST AUTOMOTIVE CORP

Motion for Summary Adjudication Parties’ Positions Defendant moves for summary adjudication of the third cause of action for products liability. It contends Plaintiff cannot establish a claim for strict products liability under a design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn theory. It also contends Plaintiff cannot establish strict products liability because Defendant is not in the business of selling or otherwise distributing the subject engine hoist.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KIANA TEBYANI VS BIRD RIDES, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges negligence, strict products liability, and a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability arising from Plaintiff’s falling off of a scooter on June 18, 2019. On June 25, 2020, Defendant Bird filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2. On June 26, 2020, the Court scheduled Defendant Bird’s motion to be heard on November 3, 2020. Trial is set for November 5, 2021.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALEX JOHNSON, ET AL. VS DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE

In Bockrath, 21 Cal. 4th at 82, the Supreme Court recognized that “it is sharp practice to implead defendants in a products liability suit alleging long-term exposure to multiple toxins unless, after a reasonable inquiry, the plaintiff actually believes that evidence has been or is likely to be found raising a reasonable medical probability that each defendant's product was a substantial factor in causing the harm, as the latter term is defined in Rutherford, supra, 16 Cal. 4th 953.

  • Hearing

DAVID WHITE, ET AL. VS ZIMMER US, INC., ET AL.

., and Sand Medical for: (1) negligence; (2) negligent design; (3) strict products liability-failure to warn; (4) negligent product liability – failure to warn; and (5) loss of consortium. Plaintiff David White alleges that on or around March 6, 2017 and March 30, 2017, David White presented himself to Spine Group Beverly Hills, and John J. Regan, M.D. with neck and arm pain. (FAC ¶ 14.) Plaintiff David White was diagnosed with “‘cervical spondylosis effecting (sic.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

KRISTIN HIRAI, ET AL. VS SKATING EDGE ICE ARENA, ET AL.

The original complaint included causes of action for: Premises Liability (Skating Edge and Heindl); Dangerous Condition of Public Property (City of Los Angeles, City of Torrance, County of Los Angeles); Negligence (Jessica, Lonnie, and Tanesha Phillips; Tara and Sergio Fernandez); Strict Products Liability (SHARK Helmets North America, LLC); Negligent Products Liability (SHARK Helmets North America, LLC); Products Liability – Breach of Warranties (SHARK Helmets North America, LLC); Wrongful Death/Survival

  • Hearing

JOHN ERICK SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO AND WRONGFUL DEATH HEIRS OF JADE ERICK VS. KIM D KELLY ND MPH

The Alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to Strict Liability – Design Defect. The Motion is DENIED with respect to Manufacturing Defect, Duty to Warn and Negligence. The Court finds triable issues of fact as to whether Imprimis Pharmaceuticals is a manufacturer subject to strict products liability. Further, the Court finds triable issues of fact as to whether as a manufacturer, Imprimis was negligent in development and delivery of the drug at issue.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BEATRIZ VALDEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 200

FACTS OF THE CASE This is a products liability case. The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges as follows. Decedent Rodolfo Chavez (“Decedent”) worked with various products and machines as a Machinist that caused him to be exposed to toxins, fibrogens, or carcinogens during the course of his employment. (SAC ¶ 30.) The exposure to these substances caused toxic injury to Decedent, ultimately leading to his death. (SAC ¶ 30.)

  • Hearing

TU THI VO ET AL VS MIGHTY U S A INC

Plaintiffs allege strict products liability, negligent products liability, breach of express and implied warranties, and negligence. Plaintiffs’ complaint arises from a defective milling machine that caused decedent Tuan Anh Cao’s death on January 20, 2017. On November 1, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, naming Defendants Mighty U.S.A., Inc., Mighty Enterprises, Inc., The Machine Group, Inc., Acromil Corporation, and She Hong Industrial Co., Ltd.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MICHAEL ALLEN DENNY VS TUUYEN NGUYEN, ET AL.

The court notes Plaintiff requests to file a first amended complaint to assert new causes of action against Defendants including 1) Strict Products Liability (design defect); 2) Strict Products Liability (manufacturing defect); 3) Strict Products Liability (failure to warn); 4) Negligence (design, sale, manufacturing); and 5) Negligence (failure to warn). As part of the motion, Plaintiff includes a copy of the proposed amended pleading. (CRC Rule 3.1324(a).)

  • Hearing

NHIEU V. CENTRAL HEALTH PLAN OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

Becker’s MSJ/A is denied as to the first cause of action for Strict Products Liability but granted as to the second cause of action for breach of implied warranty.

  • Hearing

KRISTIN HIRAI, ET AL. VS SKATING EDGE ICE ARENA, ET AL.

The complaint includes causes of action for: Premises Liability (Skating Edge and Heindl); Dangerous Condition of Public Property (City of Los Angeles, City of Torrance, County of Los Angeles); Negligence (Jessica, Lonnie, and Tanesha Phillips; Tara and Sergio Fernandez); Strict Products Liability (SHARK Helmets North America, LLC); Negligent Products Liability (SHARK Helmets North America, LLC); Products Liability – Breach of Warranties (SHARK Helmets North America, LLC); Wrongful Death/Survival (All

  • Hearing

LORELAY FAUSSIER VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

(Ibid.) “ ‘[T]he economic loss rule allows a plaintiff to recover in strict products liability in tort when a product defect causes damage to “other property”, that is, property other than the product itself. The law of contractual warranty governs damage to the product itself.’ ” (Id. at p. 989.)

  • Hearing

PAMELA CHAVEZ-HUTSON VS WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP INC ET AL

On 3/10/16, Plaintiff filed the instant action for: (1) Strict Products Liability; (2) Negligence and (3) Breach of Warranty. Defendants now seek an order granting summary judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff on the ground that all of Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred under CCP 335.1.

  • Hearing

JOSEPH SORIA VS MILLERCOORS, LLC, ET AL.

(“Alltech”), Pacific, PolyOne Corporation (“PolyOne”), Marinela Hendon (“Hendon”) and Does 1-100 for: General Negligence Premises Liability Negligent Undertaking Strict Products Liability—Design Defect Strict Products Liability—Failure to Warn A Status Conference is set for November 3, 2020. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747; Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 36     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.