What is strict products liability?

Useful Resources for Strict Products Liability

Rulings on Strict Products Liability

1-25 of 925 results

LUIS TISNADO VS HYTROL CONVEYOR COMPANY INC ET AL

The complaint includes causes of action for negligence, negligent products liability, and strict products liability; each cause of action is asserted against all three defendants. The crux of the complaint against Defendants is found at ¶¶15 and 16, which allege: 15.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2017

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

LATHAM VS. NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

Plaintiff's SAC alleges claims for (1) negligence, (2) strict products liability, and (3) loss of consortium. Defendant Burckhardt Compression (US) Inc. was substituted into the action as DOE 34 on on 12/16/11. 2. The SAC states sufficient facts to state a cause of action against Defendant Burkhardt for products liability based on negligence in its allegations in ¶¶ 31-38, which expressly encompass DOE 34.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2012

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

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

WILLIAM FRULLANI VS. SAN NUTRITION

Strict products liability: "Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 432, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443, sets forth the two tests for strict products liability in California. "[A] product may be found defective in design, so as to subject a manufacturer to strict liability for resulting injuries, under either of two alternative tests.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

BRAYDER NAVARRETE ET AL VS MAYWOOD PLAZA MEAT MARKET ET AL

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for Strict Liability. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s cause of action for Strict Liability does not state sufficient facts to support the elements of Strict Products Liability. In Opposition, Plaintiff states that he does not oppose Defendant’s demurrer. Conclusion Plaintiff’s FAC fails to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action for Strict Products Liability.

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2016

BENJAMIN CRUZ V. GREAT NORTHERN EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTING, INC., ET AL.

Analysis Cruz relies on three theories of liability in the third cause of action, namely strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Each theory is addressed in turn. A. Strict Products Liability “The doctrine of strict products liability imposes strict liability in tort on the manufacturer of a defective product and others in the product’s chain of distribution.” (Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 173, 181-82.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2018

JAMES NICHOLS VS WALGREEN CO., ET AL.

Demurrer – Strict Products Liability The California Supreme Court has held that “a pharmacy is immune from strict [products] liability” because a pharmacist’s “conduct in filling a prescription is to be deemed a service.” (Murphy v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 672, 680.) In an attempt to counter this controlling authority, Plaintiff cites to a Supreme Court opinion involving a claim for strict products liability brought against a drug manufacturer, Brown v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2019

ELEANORA MURPH VS NBC UNIVERSAL THEME PARKS ET AL

Per Ontiveros v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 424, 434, a business that purchases a product for the purpose of using the product in its business is not liable under a strict products liability theory if the product does not perform properly. In those situations, the business is considered to be the “end user” of the product, and the strict products liability theory does not apply to it. Pursuant to Ferrari v.

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

ANDREA VIGLIETTA-PICHLER VS FROGURT EMPIRE INC

Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of action for negligence and strict products liability. Both causes of action are pled against Frogurt and Does 1-50. At this time, Frogurt moves for judgment on the pleadings on the second cause of action for strict products liability. Frogurt correctly notes that the complaint, at ¶7, alleges Does 21-50 designed, manufactured, sold, and/or introduced the subject chair into the stream of commerce.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2018

CHASE HOLLOWAY ET AL VS MARUICHI AMERICAN CORPORATION

Konecranes contends that the strict products liability claim against it fails because Konecranes was not part of the chain of distribution, and causation fails because the VFD was not a substantial cause of Plaintiff’s injury. “The doctrine of strict products liability imposes strict liability in tort on all of the participants in the chain of distribution of a defective product.” (Bostick v. Flex Equip. Co. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 80, 88.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LANCE ROSCOE VS. FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, ET AL.

Defendant’s general demurrer to the third cause of action for strict products liability on the ground that the product for was safe for its intended use is OVERRULED. The complaint alleges sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for strict products liability. Whether the chicken in question contained a defect rendering it hazardous and unfit for human consumption is a question of fact not appropriate for determination by demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANNA ALLGEIER VS STARBUCKS CORPORATION ET AL

Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action – Products Liability Several types of products liability cases exist, including three major theories: strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. A prima facie case of strict product liability requires plaintiff to demonstrate that (a) the product was legally “defective;” (b) the product defendant was causally connected to the defect; and (c) plaintiff suffered injury as a proximate result of the defect.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2018

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BARBARA LOUGHLIN VS SANTA CATALINA ISLAND RESORT SERVICES IN

The Court previously denied adjudication of the 2nd cause of action for strict products liability as Defendants did not establish at the time of their Motion for Summary Judgment/ Adjudication that they were not involved in the making or marketing of the zip-line. Strict liability in tort extends to all those engaged in the chain of distribution, including those involved in the “marketing enterprise.” San Diego Hospital Assn. v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. App. 4th 8, 13 (Cal. App. 4th Dist.1994).

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2016

JORGE RUIZ ET AL VS BRYAN ROJAS ET AL

Plaintiffs’ FAC, filed on November 13, 2018, asserts the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Gross Negligence; (3) Strict Products Liability – Design Defect; (4) Strict Products Liability – Failure to Warn; (5) Strict Products Liability – Breach of Express Warranty; (6) Strict Products Liability – Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (7) Strict Products Liability – Negligent Misrepresentation; (8) Wrongful Death; and (9) Loss of Consortium.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

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

PANKEY VS. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES INC

The California courts have not addressed the issue whether an animal is a "product," nor have they adopted Restatement (Third) for products liability, notwithstanding it has been in existence since 1989. Restatement (Third) Torts, Products Liability, § 19, subd. (a) provides "A product is tangible personal property distributed commercially for use or consumption..."

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PANKEY VS. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES INC

The California courts have not addressed the issue whether an animal is a "product," nor have they adopted Restatement (Third) for products liability, notwithstanding it has been in existence since 1989. Restatement (Third) Torts, Products Liability, § 19, subd. (a) provides "A product is tangible personal property distributed commercially for use or consumption..."

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROCHEL DISI VS TAD TANOURA M D ET AL

On September 20, 2018, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) medical malpractice, (2) medical battery, (3) medical malpractice – lack of informed consent, (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect, (5) negligent design, (6) negligence, (7) strict products liability – failure to warn, (8) negligent products liability – failure to warn, and (9) misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROSARIO ROMERO VS DISNEY FACILITIES SERVICE AND SUPPORT ET A

CAUSES OF ACTION IN COMPLAINT: 1) Negligence 2) Products Liability - Strict Liability 3) Products Liability - Negligence RELIEF REQUESTED: Summary Judgment of the Complaint DISCUSSION: This hearing concerns the motion of Defendant, Otis Elevator Co. for summary judgment. Under CCP section 437c, the Defendant has the burden of offering facts that demonstrate that the Plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of her causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2017

KEEGAN CARRICO VS MEDTRONIC, ET AL.

Strict Products Liability/Negligent Products Liability/Breach of Implied Warranty/Breach of Express Warranty Strict products liability requires: (1) a product placed in the market; (2) defendant’s knowledge that it will be used without inspection for defect; (3) defect in the manufacture or design of the product, or failure to warn; (4) causation; and (5) injury. (Nelson v. Sup. Ct. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 689, 695.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

NELSON VS DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE

Strict Products Liability—Design Defect; 2. Strict Products Liability—Manufacturing Defect; 3. Strict Products Liability—Failure to Warn; 4. Negligence Product Liability. None of the Does defendants have been specifically named and the employer’s insurer, Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, administered by Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies (Redwood Fire) has filed a Notice of First Lien, based on its status as the workers’ compensation carrier for Alpha Materials, Inc., plaintiff’s employer.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 37     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.