What is strict products liability?

Useful Rulings on Strict Products Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict 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

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

VIVI ROBYN STAFFORD VS BROADSTONE FAIRFAX, LLC, ET AL.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s third cause of action for strict products liability does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiff’s third cause of action consists of mere conclusory allegations without any factual basis. (Complaint at ¶¶ 27-28.) The crux of Plaintiff’s complaint is that a construction barricade fell on her. The complaint, besides conclusions of law (Id. at ¶ 27), does not state facts sufficient for a cause of action for strict products liability.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

MARCELLA ANDERSON V. KENNETH GOLDBERG, DMD

Strict Liability With respect to strict liability, Coastal Oral argues it cannot be held liable on a products liability claim because its primary purpose was to provide dental care and treatment, and that any product used during an implantation procedure is incidental to that care. In support, Coastal Oral cites to Hennigan v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 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

IRENE FRANCO VS JOSE LOPEZ, ET AL.

The Court notes that Plaintiff checks the boxes for general negligence; intentional tort; and products liability—but no attachments with respect to those causes of actions are attached to the operative pleading. Defendants demur pursuant to CCP §430.10(e) and (d). Fraud Whether intentional or negligent in nature, fraud actions are subject to strict requirements of particularity in pleading. (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JUAN ARREGUIN, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

(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

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ZEKRIA V. MIRAMAR LABS

Defendants shall file their answers, if at all, within 10 days. 1st cause of action, strict products liability. The FAC alleges facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. It alleges a strict liability design-defect claim under both the consumer expectation test and the risk/benefit test. (See Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

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

Nor does Style-Line’s FACC allege any products liability theory. 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

ELIAS SHOKRIAN VS O GARA COACH COMPANY, LLC

Fourth Cause of Action: Strict Products Liability Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for strict products liability because (1) Plaintiff fails to allege that he sustained any personal injury; (2) this claim is barred by the two year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1; and (3) this claim is barred by the economic loss doctrine. (Demurrer MPA, pp. 3:2-4, 3:20-4:4.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

PAUL MARTIGNETTI VS PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS INC

Plaintiff asserts three causes of action against Defendants Schindler and Kone (along with other defendants): negligence; premises liability; and strict products liability. Schindler and Kone have moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not opposed the motions SCHINDLER’S MOTION Plaintiff contends that while he was exiting the elevator in question, the elevator’s sensors failed to detect the presence of his foot, and closed on his foot, crushing it.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MATTHEW D CINQUANTA VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC ET AL

(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

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GOMEZ VS. NOMAN

Case law recognizes 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. (Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 473, 483-84 (“Jimenez”).) However, the facts in this case are distinguishable from Jimenez, i.e., Plaintiff is seeking damages to the subject vehicle, not any “other property.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

PETER GIBSON VS THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

The complaint alleges negligence and strict products liability arising from a commercial gate entry system’s arm suddenly coming down onto Plaintiff’s head on April 26, 2018. On April 8, 2020, Defendant Universal Studios LLC (erroneously sued and served as Universal Parks & Resorts) filed a demurrer to the complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10. Trial is set for July 13, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 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

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

REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION Sansher argues that summary adjudication of the First, Second, Third, and Sixth Causes of Action (for negligence, strict products liability, and loss of consortium) is appropriate because of its argument that Ramos was never sufficiently exposed to Sansher products. (Motion at pp. 13, 16.) Yet the failure of this argument as a whole militates against its success as to these claims in particular. The result is the same, and the motion is DENIED as to these claims.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

DON A YOUNG VS EAGLERIDER INC ET AL

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.” (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.) A manufacturing defect exists when the product differs from the manufacturer’s intended result or when the product differs from “ostensibly identical units of the same product line” when the product left the defendant’s possession.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEFFREY CREMEANS VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ET AL

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Jeffrey Cremeans (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Southern California Edison Company (“Defendant”) on July 16, 2018, alleging causes of action for: negligence; strict liability for ultrahazardous activities; strict products liability; and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LUMINA V. UMINA

Linn (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 245, 250, 205 Cal.Rptr. 550 [complaint alleged products liability based on manufacture and sale of liquid protein diet; plaintiffs could not avoid summary judgment by showing defendant negligently wrote book promoting diet]; see generally FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381–382, 282 Cal.Rptr. 508.)” (Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1663.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

Linn (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 245, 250, 205 Cal.Rptr. 550 [complaint alleged products liability based on manufacture and sale of liquid protein diet; plaintiffs could not avoid summary judgment by showing defendant negligently wrote book promoting diet]; see generally FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381–382, 282 Cal.Rptr. 508.)” (Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1663.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

JANICE FELDMAN ET L. V. THE VIKING CORPORATION ET AL.

Background: On February 26, 2019, plaintiffs Janice Feldman and 661 Park Lane LLC (collectively, Feldman) filed their original complaint in this action asserting claims, including a cause of action for strict products liability, arising out of an alleged incident in which a fire sprinkler manufactured by defendant The Viking Corporation (Viking) prematurely activated causing damage.

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2020

JANET O MAUSNER VS TELEBRANDS CORP ET AL

Breach of Implied Warranty Defendant argues Plaintiff’s claim for breach of implied warranty is superseded by her strict products liability claims. Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action is entitled “Strict Products Liability -- Breach of Implied Warranty.” In Grinnell v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • 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) (“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

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY VS JB PRODUCTS INC

Information regarding other complaints is discoverable in a products liability action. Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 761, 765-766 (trial court imposed unreasonable restrictions on discovery of other lawsuits concerning exploding batteries). Defendant's status as a distributor does not make information about other claims involving the same product irrelevant. The information itself is relevant whether defendant or someone else has it.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JUSTIN MORGENTHALER ET AL VS JUAN ANTONIO HAROMARTINEZ ET AL

As against Defendant General Motors (“GM”), Plaintiffs allege causes of action for strict products liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn/negligent failure to recall, and punitive damages based on the subject suburban containing defective parts. TR: GRANT Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted. (Evid. Code § 452.) Defendant moves the Court for a protective order.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY VS JB PRODUCTS INC

Information regarding other complaints is discoverable in a products liability action. Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 761, 765-766 (trial court imposed unreasonable restrictions on discovery of other lawsuits concerning exploding batteries). Defendant's status as a distributor does not make information about other claims involving the same product irrelevant. The information itself is relevant whether defendant or someone else has it.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 32     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.