What is strict products liability?

Useful Rulings on Strict Products Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict Products Liability

576-600 of 616 results

CUSTOM-BILT HOLDINGS, LLC V. ABERCROMBIE

., � 337.15 applies to strict products liability causes of action]; Stoneson Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 178, 181 [we conclude that Code Civ. Proc., � 337.15 applies to bar a products liability cause of action]; Gundogdu v. King Mai, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 310, 312 [10-year term under CCP � 337.15 applies to negligence and breach of implied warranty causes of action].)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2014

ELAINE PERCY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

Duty is not an element of strict products liability. (Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451.) Defendant moved solely for summary judgment and did not include an alternate request for summary adjudication of individual causes of action. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:45a.m. A court reporter will not be provided by the court.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2014

ELAINE PERCY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

Duty is not an element of strict products liability. (Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451.) Defendant moved solely for summary judgment and did not include an alternate request for summary adjudication of individual causes of action. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:45a.m. A court reporter will not be provided by the court.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2014

ELAINE PERCY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

Duty is not an element of strict products liability. (Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451.) Defendant moved solely for summary judgment and did not include an alternate request for summary adjudication of individual causes of action. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:45a.m. A court reporter will not be provided by the court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2014

ELAINE PERCY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

Duty is not an element of strict products liability. (Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451.) Defendant moved solely for summary judgment and did not include an alternate request for summary adjudication of individual causes of action. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 10:15a.m., not 9:30a.m. A court reporter will not be provided by the court.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2014

KING V FOREVER RESORTS & 1408785 BURGESS V FOREVER RESORTS

o The court denies summary judgment/adjudication as to the third cause of action for strict products liability in both Plaintiff Kings� and Burgess�s operative pleadings, as there are disputed issues of material fact as to whether �Nassie� -- the name of the barge designed and manufactured by Lake Don Pedro, Inc., sold to Monterey County, and used in the salvage operation at issue -- was placed into the �stream of commerce.� [Claims raised by Noncounty Defendants] � Product liability rules do not apply where

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2014

ESTATE OF ESTANISLAO JOSE RAMOS VS MOHAMED AMER ET AL

�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 Equipment Co., Inc., 147 Cal.App.4th 80, 88 (2007). The doctrine has been extended to the mass production and sale of homes. Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc., 269 Cal.App.2d 224, 227 (1969) (defendant manufactured and sold 4,000 residential units).

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2014

ROXANNE MANDERS ET AL VS SANTA BARBARA COTTAGE HOSPITAL ETAL

Plaintiffs expressly do not oppose the demurrer to the second cause of action on the grounds that a medical provider may not be liable under a strict products liability theory (San Diego Hospital Association v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 8, 13). The general demurrer to the second cause of action will be sustained without leave to amend on that ground.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2014

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ELAINE PERCY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

Assuming without deciding that the court can consider the new arguments and evidence provided in plaintiffs' supplemental briefing, plaintiffs did not create a triable issue whether defendant is liable under a theory of strict products liability. Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451 is inapplicable to the strict products liability issue here. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:45a.m. A court reporter will not be provided by the court.

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2014

ALMA ARCINIEGAS VS. CORE CARE CENTER LLC ET AL

Plaintiff's third, fourth, and fifth causes of action are not "fraud-on-the-FDA" claims, but common law strict products liability and negligence claims. (Complaint 37-54; see also Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee (2001) 531 U.S. 341.) Common law claims against medical device manufacturers may be maintained after the enactment of Medical Device Amendments of 1976. (Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr (1996) 518 U.S. 470, 491; see also Wyeth v. Levine (2009) 555 U.S. 555, 567-570.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2014

MCDONOUGH VS KNELL

., the plaintiff in a wrongful death action sued on a theory of strict products liability the manufacturer of an airplane that crashed. (Id. at p. 86.) Counsel for the defendant airplane manufacturer had previously represented the deceased in a divorce and in several business matters. (Ibid.) Recognizing the potential conflict of interest, the defendant’s counsel alerted plaintiff’s counsel to the prior representation shortly after the complaint was filed. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2014

DANE COYLE CUSTOM VS GENOVA PRODUCTS INC

"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." Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, 483. While Jimenez extended the tort recovery to damage to other property, the Jimenez court indeed emphasized that the initial query was to identify the property damaged.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2013

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

OWENS VS. KERNS

DISCUSSION Each plaintiff asserts four causes of action against Suburban, for strict products liability (seventeenth), negligence/products liability (eighteenth), breach of warranty (nineteenth) and strict liability (twentieth).2 Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) 1. Suburban seeks summary judgment as to all causes of action or, alternatively, summary adjudication of the nineteenth cause of action and the issue of punitive damages, against each plaintiff herein.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2013

ESTATE OF RAMOS V. MOHAMED AMER, ET AL.

Products Liability: The essential elements of strict products liability are: plaintiff was harmed by a product distributed, manufactured or sold by defendant that contained a manufacturing defect or was defectively designed or did not include sufficient warning of potential safety hazards. CACI 1200. For negligent products liability, a plaintiff must plead and prove defendant’s negligence in the design, manufacture, supply or installation of the product. CACI 1220.

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2013

THE CALIFORNIA DEPT OF FORESTRY ETC VS DANA LARSEN ET AL

The FAC asserts three causes of action: (1) strict products liability – design defect; (2) strict products liability – failure to warn; and (3) negligence. Other than adding the new cause of action, the FAC generally repeats the allegations of the complaint. The FAC does not identify Andreas Stihl by name and continues to refer to Doe 1. Andreas Stihl now demurs to the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2013

GLENN GUSTO VS WEST MARINE PRODUCTS INC ET AL

The complaint alleges causes of action for negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. On August 10, 2012, Taylor Made served a request for production of documents on plaintiff. To date, no responses have been received to the discovery and defendant now moves for an order compelling responses and for an award of monetary sanctions against plaintiff in the amount of $585.00. There is no filed opposition to the motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2013

WYATT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION VS HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ET A

Nature of Proceedings: Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice Complaint: Plaintiff Wyatt Technology Corporation brings this action for negligence and strict products liability against defendants Hewlett-Packard Company (HP), 3Com Corporation and Accton Technology Corporation. Plaintiff alleges: Plaintiff sustained damages of $385,672.90 when a fire at its premises at 6300 Hollister Avenue in Goleta on September 30, 2009 was caused by a malfunction of a 3Com 8-port switch.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2012

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DAVISREED CONSTRUCTION INC VS 1260 BB PROPERTY LLC

Demurrers: Cross-defendants Quality Cabinet and Owen Finley demur to the seventh cause of action for strict products liability on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute the cause of action and the eleventh cause of action for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute the cause of action and uncertainty. Owen Finley asks the court to take judicial notice of subcontracts.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2012

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JAMIE KROLL VS SANTA BARBARA CITY COLLEGE ET AL

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (“TAC”) alleges causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) breach of implied warranty, (3) strict products liability, (4) negligence under Government Code §815.4, and (5) dangerous condition of public property under Government Code §835(b). The first three causes of action are asserted against Jordano’s, while the fourth and fifth causes of action are asserted against SBCC. SBCC now demurs to the fourth and fifth causes of action for failure to state a cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2012

KROLL VS SANTA BARBARA CITY COLLEGE ET AL

In the SAC, plaintiff asserts causes of action for: (1) negligence, (2) breach of implied warranty, (3) strict products liability, (4) negligence (Gov. Code, § 815.4), and (5) premises liability (Gov. Code, § 835, subd. (b)). The first three causes of action are brought against Jordano’s. The fourth and fifth causes of action are brought against SBCC. SBCC demurs to the fourth and fifth causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2012

MARK WENTZ VS. JOHN MOURIER CONSTRUCTION INC

The Court notes the parties' apparent dispute over whether the SB800 process allows causes of action specifically titled, for example, "negligence" or "strict products liability." The Court need not resolve that issue on this demurrer as all four causes of action can be properly construed as attempting to seek damages for Defendant's failure to comply with the construction standards under SB800.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2012

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LATHAM VS. NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

The SAC pleads sufficient facts to state a cause of action for strict products liability against Does 31 to 60 as well in ¶¶56-60. The loss of consortium count is sufficient as it is based on the prior allegations. 3. Unlike the indemnity claims based on contract and comparative fault raised by National Gas Systems Inc.'

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2012

PACIFIC OAKS LP ET AL VS MM MECHANICAL INC ET AL

As with the other claims in this case, Willow has also alleged all of the facts necessary to maintain causes of action for strict products liability and negligence.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2012

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JAMIE KROLL VS SANTA BARBARA CITY COLLEGE ET AL

Analysis Strict products liability arises under three theories. 1) Manufacturing defect, the elements of which are: a) the defendant manufactured, distributed, or sold the product; b) the product contained a manufacturing defect when it left defendant 's possession; c) the plaintiff was harmed; and d) the product's defect was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff 's harm.

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2011

INTERLINK ELECTRONICS INC VS. CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION

Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state causes of action for strict products liability and breach of an express warranty. Specifically, plaintiff has alleged harm to property other than the subject product, namely "damage[] to Interlink parts that incorporated the [product]." (Complaint, ¶ 12.) Greater specificity is not required in pleading these causes of action. Therefore, the demurrer to the first and second causes of action is overruled.

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2011

  « first    1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.