What is strict products liability?

Useful Rulings on Strict Products Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict Products Liability

201-225 of 621 results

LANDY MIS ET AL VS ARTURO DON DIEGO ET AL

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY “One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who sells or distributes a defective product is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the defect.” (Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod. Liab. § 1 (1998).) “A product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, or is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings.”

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2019

ILLINOIS MID. INS. V. WESTFIELD GALLERIA

As an initial matter, plaintiff concedes in the opposition that he is abandoning the claims in his second cause of action for strict products liability and seeks dismissal of this claim. The motion is granted as to the second cause of action. The motion is denied as to the first and third causes of action. As an initial PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT THURSDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 42 THE HONORABLE CHARLES D. WACHOB TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR FEBRUARY 21, 2019 AT 8:30 A.M.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HUMBERTO RUIZ III VS VGOD INC ET AL

Homran dba Cig Room for (1) strict products liability and (2) negligence. On September 24, 2018, Iskandar J. Homran dba E Cig Room filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract, negligence, and indemnity. LEGAL AUTHORITY The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. CCP § 436(a).

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HUMBERTO RUIZ III VS VGOD INC ET AL

Homran dba Cig Room for (1) strict products liability and (2) negligence. On September 24, 2018, Iskandar J. Homran dba E Cig Room filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract, negligence, and indemnity. LEGAL AUTHORITY The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. CCP § 436(a).

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARY LOUIE V. CITY OF FRESNO

Superior Court (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1190 [strict products liability supports wrongful death action].) In contrast, a breach of contract does not give rise to a cause of action for damages for wrongful death. (Moxon v. County of Kern (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 393, 399; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 327, 335.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MELVIN T. WHEELER SONS LP VS. CATERPILLAR, INC.

The motion is DENIED as to the First and Twelfth Causes of Action for Strict Products Liability and Negligence, respectively.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

MARK WOODSON VS PEDDINGHAUS CORPORATION ET AL

Plaintiff cites no case law providing for strict products liability when the product itself simply was not the cause of the explosion. Peddinghaus’s motion for summary adjudication is therefore GRANTED as to the second cause of action. First Cause of Action: Negligence Peddinghaus argues that Plaintiff’s claim for negligence must fail for the same reason as the strict products liability claim.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

MOTT V. RYAN ASSOCIATES

Plaintiff sued general contractor Ryan Associates and USAP for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligence, and strict products liability when the Panels began to warp and fail. Ryan filed a cross-complaint against various subcontractors, includingUSAP, installer Brazelton Builders (“Brazelton”), and Napco Painting Contractors, Inc. (“Napco”), alleging various breaches of contract and equitable claims.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2019

JARED KATZ VS EQUINOX THE RELATED COMPANIES L P

However, the court does not find it proper to strike the allegations pertaining to products liability, strict products liability, and negligence per se as there could be a claim for those causes of action and this is more proper on demurrer. Therefore, the motion to strike is GRANTED with 20 days’ leave to amend in part and DENIED in part. Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2019

ROBERT WATKINS SR ET AL VS JOSE GUZMAN ET AL

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges a wrongful death action with the following causes of action: 1) Negligence; 2) Premises liability; and 3) Strict products liability Defendants Jose Guzman, Mario Driver, U.S. Storage Centers, Inc., and Utopia Transport, Inc. (“settlors”), apply for a determination by the Court that their settlement with the plaintiffs was made in good faith. Defendant Navistar opposes the application.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROBERTO FOURCADE, ET AL. VS. HDS SUPPLY CONSTRUCTION & INDUS

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following: (1) Breach of written contract (2) Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (3) Breach of fit and finish warranties (4) Strict products liability (5) Fraud and negligent misrepresentation Plaintiff’s counsel, Kimberly Manning, now moves the Court to withdraw. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion. II.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2019

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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: Defendant Future Sonics, Inc. (“FSI”) moves to compel Defendant Jami Tanihana’s (“Tanihana”) further responses to requests for production of documents, set one (“RPD”) Nos. 7-10.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2019

CHRISTIAN GRIFFIN VS BLACK MOUNTAIN RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Issue No. 7: Plaintiffs' strict products liability claim fails because neither the water nor the City's water distribution system (i.e., reservoir, water transmission lines, and copper laterals to each home) constitute a "product" for purposes of strict products liability, and even if they did, BMR LLC would not be liable for the for the installation of its non-defective component part. The First Amended Complaint alleges: 45.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SERGIO PROA VS KIA MOTORS 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

    Jan 31, 2019

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

LOUIS VELASCO VS THE VAPORS ET AL

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Strict Products Liability Negligent Products Liability Loss of Consortium A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met his burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2019

HARVEY STONE ET AL VS PHILIP STRAW D C ET AL

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on May 30, 2018, and asserts causes of action for medical negligence, elder abuse, negligent infliction of emotional distress, strict products liability, and products liability. In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that Stone received treatment from Defendants on February 29, 2016. (FAC, ¶ 20.) Plaintiffs also allege that they did not discover Defendants’ wrongdoing until on or after July 2017. (FAC, ¶ 12.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2019

LEE V. A.W. CHESTERSTON CO., ET AL.

The fact that courts have indicated strict products liability supersedes the concept of implied warranties is not a sufficient ground for summarily adjudicating a cause of action for breach of implied warranties. A plaintiff may pursue both legal theories. In addition, defendant has not established that there is a lack of privity between plaintiffs and CYPRESS MINES CORPORATION, given that plaintiff JOSEPH WOON-SHING LEE was in the direct line of distribution.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

LEE V. A.W. CHESTERSTON CO., ET AL.

Because there is a triable issue of material fact regarding causation, the causes of action for negligence, strict products liability, failure to warn, breach of implied warranties, fraud, civil conspiracy, and loss of consortium cannot be summarily adjudicated. Plaintiffs are waiving their cause of action for enterprise liability.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

HAROLD FIGUEROA ET AL VS AT&T CORPORATION ET AL

(“All Access”) demurs to the first cause of action for Strict Products Liability – Failure to Warn on the grounds that it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against All Access. (CCP §430.10(e).) A failure to warn can constitute a product defect. (Fortman v. Hemco, Inc. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 241, 255.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2019

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

    Jan 10, 2019

MARGARET WILLIAMS ET AL VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC

Hence, strict products liability has no place in governmental tort law, directly or by analogy.” (Tolan v. State of Califronia ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 980, 986-987. [Internal Citations Omitted]) It is somewhat mystifying that Plaintiff argues LBUSD has cited no authority that there is a limitation on pleading strict liability against the government. The Tolan case, cited by LBUSD is on point. It is therefore immaterial that Plaintiff has alleged the elements of the tort.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2019

CLARKE CONTRACTING CORPORATION VS. CITY OF ALHAMBRA

Focusing on the conduct of persons involved in the construction process, courts in this state have found [*636] such a remedy in the law of negligence. 4 Viewing the home as a product, courts have also found a tort remedy in strict products liability, 5 even when the property damage consists of harm to a sound part of the home caused by another, defective part. 6 For defective products and negligent services that have caused neither property damage nor personal injury, however, tort remedies have been uncertain

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 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

    Jan 04, 2019

MICHAEL HAZARD VS BURBANK AUTO PARTS ET AL

DISCUSSION: Strict Products Liability – Failure to Warn and Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (3rd and 4th causes of action) Vehicle Effects moves for summary adjudication on Issues 3 and 4 regarding the 3rd and 4th causes of action for strict products liability – failure to warn and breach of implied warranty of merchantability, respectively. In opposition, Plaintiff states that he does not oppose the motion on the 3rd and 4th causes of action. (Opp. at p. 2, fn. 1.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2018

  « 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.