What is strict products liability?

Useful Rulings on Strict Products Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict Products Liability

176-200 of 625 results

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

  • Judge

    Brian C. Walsh

  • County

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

RONALD CHINITZ V. APPLE INC., ET AL.

Cobb Co.) (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, 483 [“[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.”].) Here, however, plaintiff does not allege that his battery was physically defective.

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2019

  • Judge

    Brian C. Walsh

  • County

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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 for implied indemnity, contribution/equitable apportionment, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

SAYRA ASRAR, ET AL. VS KIA MOTOR AMERICA, INC.

(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 03, 2019

BHARTI DHALWALA VS QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED ET AL

Hallmark argues Plaintiff cannot satisfy the test from Bay Summit to establish the requisite causal relationship between Hallmark and the jar and/or granola to justify imposing strict products liability. In Tauber-Arons Auctioneers Co. v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 268, the plaintiff was injured by a used wood planer that was purchased by his employer at an auction. The plaintiff sued the auction company and others for strict products liability. (Id. at p. 270.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2019

MICHAEL SIMEON SMITH VS AMERICAN IDOL PRODUCTIONS INC ET AL

On December 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Complaint, alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability: design defect; (3) strict products liability: failure to warn; (4) products liability: negligence; (5) breach of express warranty; and (6) breach of implied warranty. REQUESTED RELEIF: WLI moves for summary judgment in its favor against Plaintiff on the basis that: (1) the sophisticated intermediary doctrine set forth in Webb v. Special Elec.

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2019

LISA BURCH ET AL VS INTEX CORP ET AL

Plaintiffs argue that strict products liability applies equally to those who produce, market, distribute, or sell a defective product. Defendants contend their Chinese affiliate manufactured the products at issue, sold them to Intex Trading Ltd., a British Virgin Islands corporation, and who then sold to Wal-Mart. Defendants argue Wal-Mart directly imported the product and then sold the product to customers in its retail stores.

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2019

BRIAN LAMERE VS. MYCLES CYCLES INC

Plaintiffs, subsequent to the filing of this motion, attempted to dismiss their strict products liability cause of action, but it was not entered by the Court. (ROA #79.) Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendant/Cross-Complainant MYCLES CYCLES, INC. dba SAN DIEGO HARLEY DAVIDSON ("SDHD") responsible for injuries based on, what would be, the remaining tort – negligence.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

SHARIF ELAKABAWI VS EGGERS INDUSTRIES INC ET AL

Strict Products Liability – Manufacturing Defect 2. Strict Products Liability – Design Defect 3. Negligent Manufacturing & Design 4. Neg. Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”) 5. Specific Performance (not charged against Dorma) 6. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (not charged against Dorma) ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff is a Nurse Anesthetist employed by Kaiser. On April 14, 2016 he responded to a “Code Pink” (neonatal resuscitation emergency).

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

BAYSIDE OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. BOSA CALIFORNIA LLC [E-FILE]

Following McMillin Albany, Plaintiff can no longer pursue causes of action for strict products liability or negligence. The court addresses Plaintiff's other arguments, many similar to those raised on Bosa's motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

(“Howard’s Appliances”), Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC (“Serta Simmons”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Doe Defendants 1-100 for: (1) Negligence; (2) Breach of Statutory Obligation (pursuant to Labor Code Sections 3706-3709); (3) Strict Products Liability; (4) Products Liability: Negligence; and (5) Breach of Warranties. Plaintiff alleges the following.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2019

DIONE LOUISE EATON VS ZEN E OBOGI MD

Product Liability – Negligence Both Plaintiff and Defendants incorrectly cite to authority regarding strict products liability. The FAC only alleges negligence-based products liability. Such an action can be maintained against a supplier of the product. Restatement Second of Torts § 388; CACI 1220. The FAC properly alleges that Plaintiff was injured by the filler products used by Defendants and that those injuries were caused by Defendant’s negligence.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2019

ERIKA SALDANA ET AL VS RALPH REFUGIO GARCIA

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges six causes of action for: (1) negligence against Defendants; (2) negligence per se against Garcia; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress against Garcia; (4) strict products liability: manufacturing defect against Recaro and Toys “R” Us; (5) strict products liability: design defect against Recaro and Toys “R” Us; and (6) strict products liability: failure to warn against Recaro and Toys “R” Us. Defendant Recaro now moves for an order admitting Ashley G.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DOYLE, ET AL. V. IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint sets forth the following causes of action: 26 (1) Strict Products Liability; (2) Negligence; and (3) Fraud. 27 Plaintiff asserts Daniel Christopher Doyle passed away from mesothelioma on December 28 20, 2018. His surviving spouse, plaintiff Kristie Lynn Doyle, now moves for an order TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION TO APPOINT KRISTIE LYNN DOYLE AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO DECEASED PLAINTIFF DANIEL CHRISTOPHER DOYLE AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 (1) appointing her as Mr.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

  • Judge

    Thomas E. Kuhnle

  • County

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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. LEGAL AUTHORITY Demurrer When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. Taylor v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MICHAEL SHABSIS VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF

In the first amended complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiffs assert 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

    Mar 08, 2019

MICHAEL HAZARD VS BURBANK AUTO PARTS ET AL

The complaint, filed August 5, 2016, alleges 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. On September 8, 2017, Defendant/Cross-Complainant North Hollywood Auto Parts, Inc. (sued as Burbank Auto Parts) (hereinafter, “NHAP”) filed a cross-complaint against ATP and Vehicle Effects, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 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.