What is strict products liability?

Useful Rulings on Strict Products Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict Products Liability

SEAN CONLEY VS BIRD RIDES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, D/B/A/ BIRD, ET AL.

On November 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Bird Rides, Inc. d/b/a Bird and Segway Inc. alleging (1) strict products liability, (2) negligence, (3) gross negligence, (4) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular and/or intended purpose, and (5) breach implied warranty. On January 10, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to strike pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 435.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

ROCHEL DISI VS TAD TANOURA M D ET AL

On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) 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, and (8) negligent products liability – failure to warn. Biosphere and Merit are named defendants in the fourth through eighth causes of action. I.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

GEORGE T KELLY ET AL VS CHILDRENS HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES

CHLA, McFarren, Abdel-Azim, Dietz, Pulsipher, and Kapoor CHLA, McFarren, Abdel-Azim, Dietz, Pulsipher, and Kapoor similarly contend that the ninth cause of action for product liability fails because strict products liability does not apply to physicians who provided medical services rather than manufactured or supplied a product.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

AARON NG ET AL VS LEXMAR DISTRIBUTION INC ET AL

Plaintiffs filed the operative first amended complaint on June 20, 2018 alleging causes of action for (1) negligence/wrongful death, (2) strict products liability, (3) negligent failure to warn, (4) negligent design and manufacture, (5) negligent (post sale), (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ROBERT CLARK VS CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY ET AL

Sixth, the doctrine of strict products liability supersedes Plaintiff’s causes of action based on breaches of implied warranties. Seventh, Plaintiff does not have evidence Moving Defendant made a representation that was untrue, that Plaintiff relied on such a representation, and Moving Defendant intended Plaintiff to rely on such a representation. OBJECTIONS Plaintiff objects to Howard E. Pitchon, M.D.’s declaration in its entirety because it fails to state the location where the declaration was signed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOHN PHAM VS HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, A BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM, ET AL.

BACKGROUND On December 11, 2019, plaintiff John Pham filed a complaint against Hyundai Motor Company and Hyundai Motor America for (1) strict products liability – design and manufacturing defects, (2) strict products liability – failure to warn, (3) products liability – negligence, and (4) products liability – breach of implied and express warranties.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

SHIRLEY DEARCE VS KONE INC ET AL

Strict Products Liability Kone has established it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the strict products liability claims. In order to establish liability for a products liability claim based on strict liability, a plaintiff must prove that a product distributed, manufactured or sold by the defendant contained a manufacturing defect; was defectively designed; or failed to contain sufficient warning of a safety hazard. Anderson v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

BARBARA PIETROWSKI VALDEZ ET AL VS SMITH & NEPHEW INC ET AL

Third Cause of Action – Strict Products Liability for Design Defect The elements of a strict products liability cause of action are a defect in the manufacture or design of the product or a failure to warn, causation, and injury. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.) In order to be liable for strict products liability, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant “produced, manufactured, sold, or was in some way responsible for the product.” (Garcia v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

SUZANA AREZINA VS WATSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC ET AL

S&N argues Plaintiff cannot support the essential element of defect for strict products liability. Specifically, S&N argues Plaintiff’s contention that the platform was defective because the cabinet was not attached to the wall is unsupportable and Plaintiff cannot support any allegation of manufacturing or design defect. (Motion, pp. 13-15.) According to S&N, the fact that the cabinet allegedly tipped over when Plaintiff opened multiple drawers does not establish the platform was defective.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

JOSEPH SORIA VS MILLERCOORS, LLC, ET AL.

Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action (i.e., Strict Products Liability—Design Defect and Strict Products Liability—Failure to Warn, Respectively) Plaintiff has not alleged that Alltech is an entity within the stream of commerce relating to the subject sight glass or yeast storage system. Again, Plaintiff has alleged that Alltech was merely hired to “perform the yeast transfer work.” (Id., ¶13(c).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

TITIPHAN ART VUTIPRICHAR VS INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, premises liability, negligent products liability, and strict products liability in the complaint for a fog machine’s spraying of harmful chemicals on December 31, 2018. On March 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARK ANTHONY RAMOS ET AL VS ANZO NOBEL COATINGS INC ET AL

FAILURE TO WARN PSC moves for adjudication of Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for strict products liability under a failure to warn theory. “To be liable in California, even under a strict liability theory, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's failure to warn was a substantial factor in causing his or her injury. The natural corollary to this requirement is that a defendant is not liable to a plaintiff if the injury would have occurred even if the defendant had issued adequate warnings.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

AMIRONI RIOS, ET AL. V. OMAR CABRERA, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges causes of action for (1) strict products liability, (2) negligent products liability, (3) general negligence, and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs allege that Michelin negligently designed and manufactured the subject tire and that Costco and its store manager, Cabrera, failed to adequately inspect or provide adequate warnings concerning the tire. Michelin, Costco, and Cabrera deny the allegations. Plaintiffs and Michelin have reached a settlement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

SUSAN ABUSAMRA-PIXLER ET AL VS U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL INC ET A

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Strict Products Liability; Negligence; Breach of Contract; Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Declaratory Relief; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Violation of California Unfair Competition Law; and Quasi-Contract/Unjust Enrichment. On March 6, 2017, the Court granted Defendant U-Haul International, Inc.’s (hereinafter “Defendant”) motion to compel arbitration and stay action pending the completion of arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

CRAIG MARKS VS SLAVA ELIZER ET AL

It may be that defendants will easily be able to prove that they were not involved in the design, manufacture or supply of the moldings at issue here and thus cannot be liable for strict products liability. However, given that the complaint expressly alleges that defendants were so involved, the issue cannot be determined on the pleadings. The Court notes that defendants did not submit a declaration showing that they had met and conferred with plaintiff prior to filing this motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CRAIG MARKS VS SLAVA ELIZER ET AL

It may be that defendants will easily be able to prove that they were not involved in the design, manufacture or supply of the moldings at issue here and thus cannot be liable for strict products liability. However, given that the complaint expressly alleges that defendants were so involved, the issue cannot be determined on the pleadings. The Court notes that defendants did not submit a declaration showing that they had met and conferred with plaintiff prior to filing this motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GRACE ALBA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SYLVIA ALBA VS SPARKLETTS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

(erroneously sued as Crystal Mountain) and Does 1-50 for: Negligence Negligence—Products Liability Strict Products Liability On June 19, 2019, DS Services and Costco filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Cross-Defendants Crystal Mountain International Limited and Roes 1-10 for: Implied Indemnity Contribution Express Indemnity Breach of Contract Declaratory Relief On October 3, 2019, this action was transferred from the personal injury hub (Department 5) to this department.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

BRANDO JONES ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC ET AL

“The elements of a strict products liability cause of action are a defect in the manufacturer or design of the product or a failure to warn, causation and injury.” (County of Santa Calara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

MICHAEL FARHAT, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) strict products liability; (2) strict products liability; (3) breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act; (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act; (5) breach of implied warranty under California Commercial Code, Section 2314; (6) negligence (wrongful death and personal injuries); and (7) survival action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

NATALIE RUBIO , ET AL. VS GENIE INDUSTRIES, INC. , ET AL.

(Sunbelt), and Does one through one hundred (collectively, Defendants), alleging wrongful death via: (1) strict products liability; (2) negligence; (3) failure to recall/retrofit; and (4) premises liability. Sunbelt filed a third-party cross-complaint against West Coast Netting, Inc. (West) and MOES 1 through 100, alleging claims for: (1) breach of contract; (2) express indemnity; (3) declaratory relief; (4) equitable indemnity; and (5) equitable contribution.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

VIVI ROBYN STAFFORD VS BROADSTONE FAIRFAX, LLC, ET AL.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s third cause of action for strict products liability does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiff’s third cause of action consists of mere conclusory allegations without any factual basis. (Complaint at ¶¶ 27-28.) The crux of Plaintiff’s complaint is that a construction barricade fell on her. The complaint, besides conclusions of law (Id. at ¶ 27), does not state facts sufficient for a cause of action for strict products liability.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

MARCELLA ANDERSON V. KENNETH GOLDBERG, DMD

White (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 395, 403, which provides that “[a]s a condition precedent to maintaining a strict products liability claim, a plaintiff must show the transaction in which she obtained the product was one in which the transaction’s primary objective was to acquire ownership or use of a product, and not one where the primary objective was to obtain a service.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

CHERYL COLE VS. RICK HAMPTON

Products Liability “‘The elements of a strict products liability cause of action are a defect in the manufacture or design of the product or a failure to warn, causation, and injury.’ [Citations.] More specifically, plaintiff must ordinarily show: ‘(1) the product is placed on the market; (2) there is knowledge that it will be used without inspection for defect; (3) the product proves to be defective; and (4) the defect causes injury ….’ [Citation]” (Nelson v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

JUAN ARREGUIN, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

(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

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ZEKRIA V. MIRAMAR LABS

Defendants shall file their answers, if at all, within 10 days. 1st cause of action, strict products liability. The FAC alleges facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. It alleges a strict liability design-defect claim under both the consumer expectation test and the risk/benefit test. (See Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 432; see also FAC ¶¶ 42-55.) 2nd cause of action, negligent products liability. The FAC alleges facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

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.