What is strict products liability?

Useful Rulings on Strict Products Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict Products Liability

151-175 of 616 results

ALEJANDRO DANIEL SANTIZO VS VISENTE SANDOVAL AGUALLO, ET AL.

First and Third Causes of Action Defendants demurrer to the first and third causes of action for wrongful death and strict products liability on the same grounds – that as a matter of law, a driver who diverts his attention from the highway is the cause of the accident, the driver’s use of a phone or app is not a proximate cause, and no duty can be placed on the manufacturer of the Uber App.

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL SHABSIS VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF

In the first amended complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) medical negligence; (2) respondeat superior; (3) denial of medical care; (4) excessive force; (5) battery; (6) negligence; (7) strict product liability- failure to warn; (8) strict products liability- negligence; (9) breach of express warranty; (10) breach of implied warranty; and (11) negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2019

TOUSLEY V. STYMEIST, INC.

Strict Products Liability – Manufacturing Defect or Design Defect “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. (Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 121, 126-130, 104 Cal.Rptr. 433, 501 P.2d 1153 [Cronin]; Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, 62, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897 [Greenman].)” (Soule v.

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2019

SACHS VS. PACIFIC COAST OB GYN

Plaintiff's' Third Cause of Action for Strict Products Liability fails as a matter of law because it is expressly preempted by federal law, including by not limited to, 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a). 2. Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action for Negligent Products Liability fails as a matter of law because it is expressly preempted by federal law, including by not limited to, 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) 3. Plaintiffs' failure to warn claims fail because they are barred by the Learned Intermediary Doctrine.

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

ERIK HOWELL VS LG CHEM LTD ET AL

The complaint, filed February 21, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) strict products liability; and (2) negligent products liability. Counsel Marc Williams and Rachel Hedley apply to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendant LG Chem, Ltd. Plaintiff filed a Response to the application. PRO HAC VICE DISCUSSION 1.

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DANIEL RAMIREZ VS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC ET AL

First Cause of Action, Strict Products Liability: GRANTED “‘Products liability is the name currently given to the area of law involving the liability of those who supply goods or products for the use of others to purchasers, users, and bystanders for losses of various kinds resulting from so-called defects in those products.’ [Citation.]” Johnson v. United States Steel Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 22, 30.

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DANIEL RAMIREZ VS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC ET AL

First Cause of Action, Strict Products Liability: GRANTED “‘Products liability is the name currently given to the area of law involving the liability of those who supply goods or products for the use of others to purchasers, users, and bystanders for losses of various kinds resulting from so-called defects in those products.’ [Citation.]” Johnson v. United States Steel Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 22, 30.

  • Hearing

    May 20, 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

KEMPER INDEPENDENCE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. OETIKER INC

Strict Products Liability, 3. Failure to Warn, 4. Breach of Express Warranty, and 5. Money Paid.

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

RYAN KAUFMAN VS APEEL TECHNOLOGY INC

(Allergan), alleging causes of action for strict products liability, negligence per se, breach of warranty, and ultrahazardous activity. His First Amended Complaint (FAC) was filed on November 16, 2018. Numerous additional parties were brought in by Doe amendment and by cross-complaints. Prior to the incident, the property had been owned by Los Carneros Business Park L.P. (LCBP), leased by Allergan, and managed by Meridian Group Real Estate Management, Inc. (Meridian).

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2019

ALEJANDRO JIMENEZ VS PREMIER MEAT COMPANY

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff Alejandro Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Premier Meat Company for negligence, strict products liability, breach of warranty, violation of Labor Code section 4558, loss of consortium, intentional interference with prospective civil action by spoliation of evidence, and negligent interference with prospective civil action by spoliation of evidence arising out of an April 17, 2015 work-related injury meat grinder

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2019

TINA SHIH VS STARBUCKS CORPORATION

To prevail in strict products liability, a plaintiff “must prove he was injured by a defect in the product and that the product was defective when it left the hands of the retailer or manufacturer.” (Jiminez, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 383.) A plaintiff may seek recovery in a products liability case on theories of both negligence and strict liability. (Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 379, 387.)

  • Hearing

    May 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOHN J KLEINHANS ET AL VS JUSHI USA

Rodriguez, 995 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Tex. 1999) (“Liability for personal injuries caused by a product's defective design can be imposed under several legal theories, among them negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability.”). Design Defect analysis For a design defect, Plaintiffs must prove that the product was defectively designed to render it unreasonably dangerous, that a safer alternative design existed, and the defect was a producing cause of the injury. (Hernandez v. Tokai Corp.

  • Hearing

    May 06, 2019

AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA INC VS HYSTER YALE GROUP INC

DISCUSSION As framed by the complaint, Plaintiff alleges the Truck was defective, including causes of action for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty. In its responses to written discovery, Plaintiff contends the Truck was defective because the operator could not know if the Truck was in neutral.

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2019

ANTHONY GUEVARA ET AL VS KENMORE ET AL

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action: 1) Strict products liability; 2) Breach of warranty; 3) Negligence against manufacturers, distributors, and sellers; 4) Negligence against gas company and inspectors 5) Premises liability; 6) Negligent infliction of emotional distress; and 7) Wrongful death; The case has now settled. Plaintiffs petition the Court to approve the settlement of the minor plaintiff, Anthony Guevara.

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2019

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DIAZ VS. PADGETT

“Wrongful act” means a tortious act, including theories of recovery based on negligence, intentional wrongful conduct, and strict products liability. (Barrett v. Superior Court (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 1176, 1183, 1185.) “‘The elements of the cause of action for wrongful death are the tort (negligence or other wrongful act), the resulting death, and the damages, consisting of the pecuniary loss suffered by the heirs.’” (Moxon v. County of Kern (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 393, 398-399.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

KLARA ERNYES-KOFLER, ET AL. V. SANOFI S.A., ET AL.

They assert claims for (1) product liability for negligence, (2) strict products liability for failure to warn, (3) fraudulent misrepresentation, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) strict products liability for misrepresentation, (6) fraud and deceit, and (7) extreme and outrageous conduct/intentional infliction of emotional distress. II.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2019

SOPHIA NATALIE SANCHEZ ET AL VS ULTRAMAR INC ET AL

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION UNLIMITED OF LOUISIANA, INC.’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT On August 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants for negligence – wrongful death, negligence per se – wrongful death, survival action, products liability - strict products liability, and products liability – negligence relating to the June 10, 2017 fatal electrocution of Jason Alexander Sanchez (“Decedent”), a master technician.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HILL VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC

The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for Strict Products Liability: Design and Manufacturing Defect, Strict Products Liability: Failure to Warn, Negligence, Breach of Express Warranties, Breach of Implied Warranties and Wrongful Death against "All Defendants."

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

HILL VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC

The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for Strict Products Liability: Design and Manufacturing Defect, Strict Products Liability: Failure to Warn, Negligence, Breach of Express Warranties, Breach of Implied Warranties and Wrongful Death against "All Defendants."

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

BROWN V. TMW CRAFTSMAN, INC.

Plaintiffs asserted causes of action against defendant Milgard for negligence and strict products liability. Plaintiffs move for leave to file a 1st amended complaint to assert a cause of action for breach of warranty against defendant Milgard.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2019

MANUEL MARQUEZ ET AL 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

    Apr 11, 2019

THOMAS R DAVIS ET AL VS TRADER JOES COMPANY ET AL

Plaintiffs’ complaint includes causes of action for negligence, strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants move for summary judgment, contending Winter Wassail contains neither Sulfa nor Iodine, and neither Sulfa nor Iodine is used is Triple H’s manufacturing facility.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA INC VS HYSTER YALE GROUP INC

DISCUSSION As framed by the complaint, Plaintiff alleges the Truck was defective, including causes of action for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty. In its responses to written discovery, Plaintiff contends the Truck was defective because the operator could not know if the Truck was in neutral.

  • Hearing

    Apr 09, 2019

PEDRO HERNANDEZ VS JC FOODSERVICE INC ET AL

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Strict Products Liability; (2) Negligence; (3) Breach of Express Warranty; and (4) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability. In its Cross-Complaint, filed in October 2018, JC FOODSERVICE, INC. (“JC Foodservice”) alleges, in pertinent part, “The Complaint alleges that on July 7, 2015 Plaintiff was injured in the course and scope of his employment of non-party Saffron Spot.

  • Hearing

    Apr 09, 2019

  « 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.