What is strict products liability?

Useful Rulings on Strict Products Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict Products Liability

101-125 of 621 results

RICHARD HILLENBRAND VS MAP DEVELOPMENT INC ET AL

., Off the Wall Floors, On-Deck Coatings, Stamm Painting, Tate Construction, and Westco Construction for (1) strict products liability, (2) violation of standards set forth in Civil Code 896, (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (4) negligence, and (5) breach of contract. On October 24, 2018, the Map defendants filed a cross-complaint against numerous subcontractors.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EMERZIAN V. WILSONART, LLC, ET AL.

Seventh Cause of Action – Strict Products Liability In Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, the California Supreme Court stated the premise upon which strict products liability rests: “A manufacturer, distributor, or retailer is liable in tort if a defect in the manufacture or design of its product causes injury while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable way.” (Id. at p. 560.) In Barker v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

XXXXXXXXXXX VS THE HERTZ CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Complaint purports to allege three causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) negligent maintenance; (3) reckless misconduct/ gross negligence; and (4) strict products liability. Defendants demur to the third cause of action on the ground that reckless misconduct and gross negligence do not constitute causes of action that are distinct from general negligence under California law. The Court agrees that there is no separate cause of action for gross negligence under California law. See, e.g., Eriksson v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2019

  • Judge

    Kristin S. Escalante or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The complaint alleges strict products liability, negligence, failure to recall/retrofit, and premises liability for the rolling of a Genie S-85 telescopic boom causing fatal injuries to decedent Jamie Rubio on August 31, 2017. On May 15, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Defendant Knight-Calabasas, LLC d.b.a. Calabasas Country Club filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1-100 seeking indemnity, contribution, and apportionment of fault.

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2019

MICHAEL HAZARD VS BURBANK AUTO PARTS ET AL

The Complaint was filed on August 5, 2016, alleged causes of action for: (1) Strict Products Liability – Manufacturing and Design Defect; (2) Negligence; (3) Strict Products Liability – Failure to Warn; (4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (5) Fraudulent Concealment; and (6) Claim for Punitive Damages. PRESENTATION: Hanson filed the instant motions on August 15, 2019, seeking to compel ATP’s response to Form Interrogatories and deem the propounded Requests for Admission admitted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2019

SADOWSKI VS. VOLVO CAR USA LLC

Strict Product Liability – Manufacturing Defect Strict Product Liability – Design Defect Strict Product Liability – Failure to Warn NOTICED ISSUE NO. 2: Plaintiff cannot establish a triable issue of fact exists regarding Plaintiff's strict products liability claims. NOTICED ISSUE NO. 3: Plaintiff has no evidence that the Subject 2011 Volvo CX30 was defectively designed or manufactured.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

LEONOR LOPEZ VS THE BICYCLE CASINO INC

BACKGROUND On February 23, 2018, Plaintiff Leonor Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Bicycle Casino LP alleging strict products liability, negligence, a breach of a duty to warn, and a breach of warranty for cracking a tooth when eating an ice cream sundae. On August 5, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to re-open discovery and related motion cut-off dates pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050. Trial is set for October 21, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

LANDY MIS ET AL VS ARTURO DON DIEGO ET AL

Strict Products Liability 3. General Negligence Univar contends the Negligence and Strict Products Liability causes of action fail because it did not “supply” the acetone that caused the injury, and CC 1714.5 immunizes Univar because the acetone is inherently unsafe. Univar submits the following evidence: · Decedent was using a forklift to elevate a 793 gallon liquitote of acetone liquid to transfer it to a smaller 350 gallon liquitote. (Defense Separate Statement (DSS) 3.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2019

JAMES SILVA VS TJX COMPANIES INC ET AL

Claim for Products Liability Defendants argue that they cannot be liable for strict products liability because Plaintiff did not actually purchase the barstool. This argument is unpersuasive.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALYSSA E. DAVILLA, ET AL., V. FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ claims for strict products liability—manufacturing defect and implied warranty of merchantability. Alternatively, Foster Farms moves for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s first and third causes of action by citing to Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court (1992) 1 Cal.4th 617 (Mexicali) and Ford v. Miller Meat Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1196 (Ford) both of which involved a plaintiff who sustained injury from bone fragments found in their food.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

SHARIF ELAKABAWI VS EGGERS INDUSTRIES INC ET AL

., for: 1. strict products liability – manufacturing defect; 2. strict products liability – design defect; 3. products liability – negligent manufacturing and design; 4. negligence; 5. negligent infliction of emotional distress. At times relevant to the complaint, Plaintiff Elakabawi worked as a certified registered nurse anesthetist for Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (“Permanente”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2019

MICHAEL HAZARD VS BURBANK AUTO PARTS ET AL

The Complaint was filed on August 5, 2016, alleged causes of action for: (1) Strict Products Liability – Manufacturing and Design Defect; (2) Negligence; (3) Strict Products Liability – Failure to Warn; (4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (5) Fraudulent Concealment; and (6) Claim for Punitive Damages. PRESENTATION: ATP filed the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication on June 05, 2019, seeking adjudication on the issue of punitive damages. No opposition has been received.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2019

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

The complaint alleges negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and strict products liability for the failing of Plaintiffs’ brakes in Defendants’ leased vehicle on July 6, 2017. On July 26, 2019, Defendant Toyota Motor North America, Inc. filed motions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (Both Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

SEDLMEIER ROSEN VS CORE HEALTH & FITNESS LLC

As to the third issue, Defendant argues Plaintiff's strict products liability cause of action fails because the Defendant's primary objective is providing services, but products. The doctrine of strict liability in tort applies to producing and marketing enterprises responsible for placing products in the stream of commerce. (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.2d at p. 63.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DANIEL OSCHKOWSKY VS VAPE TASTE LLC

On June 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed his complaint asserting four causes of action: (1) strict products liability; (2) fraudulent concealment; (3) intentional misrepresentation; and (4) negligence. On October 28, 2016, Defendant cross-complained against Roes 1 through 50 seeking indemnity and contribution. On April 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) asserting the same four causes of action. Plaintiff dropped lost earnings in its prayer for special damages.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RAMIREZ LOPEZ VS. CJ FOODS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

At the outset, the Court notes that plaintiff Sonia Noemi Ramirez Lopez (“Plaintiff”) concedes that her fifth and sixth causes of action for strict products liability are not viable against Defendant and should be dismissed. (Opp’n at 11.) Thus, the only claims that remain against Defendant are Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for products liability and seventh cause of action for breach of warranty.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

BEATRIZ CASTANO BARDAWILL VS DOG HAUS LLC

Liability for strict products liability is not limited to mere purchasers of products. It is long established that a bystander injured by a defective product may recover on a theory of strict products liability. (Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 578, 586.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

CAROLINE S FRANKEL VS MIRA FLORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ET

Second Cause of Action: Strict Liability A strict products liability cause of action can be based on manufacturing defects, design defects, or inadequate warnings or failures to warn. (See Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 995.) In order to be liable for strict products liability, a plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant “produced, manufactured, sold, or was in some way responsible for the product.” (Garcia v. Joseph Vince Co. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 868, 874.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KELLY SCHWALBAH VS VNA HOSPICE AND PALLIATIVE CARE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleged causes of action for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. The elements for a cause of action for strict products liability are: (1) product was placed on the market; (2) defendant’s knowledge that it will be used without inspection for defect; (3) defect in the manufacture, design, or a failure to warn; 4) causation; and 5) injury. (Nelson v. Sup. Ct. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 689, 695; County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

The complaint alleges negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and strict products liability for the failing of Plaintiffs’ brakes in Defendants’ leased vehicle on July 6, 2017. On July 22, 2019, Defendant Toyota Motor North America, Inc. filed motions to compel Plaintiffs’ attendance at depositions pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a). Trial is set for October 24, 2019. PARTY’S REQUESTS Defendant Toyota Motor North America, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

ARMENTA V. ARYZTA LLC

There are three potential types of “defects” that can support a strict products liability claim: manufacturing defects, warning defects, and design defects. (See Id. at 32.) In support of its motion, Defendant points to Plaintiff’s discovery responses, in which Plaintiff states that the Donut Machine continued to run while missing proofer slats (i.e., the “trays”). (UMF 31.) This allowed users to get their hand or arm caught in the proofer chain. (UMF 30.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2019

EDITH ANNE PETRUCCI ET AL VS 7 ELEVEN DISTRIBUTION COMPANY

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 312 [italics added].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2019

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MIREYA AVILES MORALES VS CASA HERRERA INC ET AL

., Circle Foods LLC and Does 1-100 for: Strict Products Liability Negligent Products Liability On February 25, 2019, this action was transferred from the personal injury hub (Department 3) to this department. A Status Conference is set for August 7, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JAMES VALVA, ET AL. V. 3I INCORPORATED, ET AL.

While these duties certainly support claims for strict products liability and the like, as PSC notes in its Reply Brief, they do not, necessarily, support claims for fraudulent concealment. (See Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc. (Bigler-Engler) (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 276, 312.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

  • Judge

    Monique Langhorne

  • County

    Napa County, CA

SEDLMEIER ROSEN VS CORE HEALTH & FITNESS LLC

As to the third issue, Defendant argues Plaintiff's strict products liability cause of action fails because the Defendant's primary objective is providing services, but products. The doctrine of strict liability in tort applies to producing and marketing enterprises responsible for placing products in the stream of commerce. (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.2d at p. 63.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 25     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.