What is strict products liability?

Useful Rulings on Strict Products Liability

Rulings on Strict Products Liability

1-25 of 621 results

ANDREA VIGLIETTA-PICHLER VS FROGURT EMPIRE INC

Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of action for negligence and strict products liability. Both causes of action are pled against Frogurt and Does 1-50. At this time, Frogurt moves for judgment on the pleadings on the second cause of action for strict products liability. Frogurt correctly notes that the complaint, at ¶7, alleges Does 21-50 designed, manufactured, sold, and/or introduced the subject chair into the stream of commerce.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2018

LATHAM VS. NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

The SAC pleads sufficient facts to state a cause of action for strict products liability against Does 31 to 60 as well in ¶¶56-60. The loss of consortium count is sufficient as it is based on the prior allegations. 3. Unlike the indemnity claims based on contract and comparative fault raised by National Gas Systems Inc.'

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2012

LUIS TISNADO VS HYTROL CONVEYOR COMPANY INC ET AL

The motion for summary adjudication of the strict products liability theory, therefore, is also denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2017

LANCE ROSCOE VS. FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, ET AL.

Defendant’s general demurrer to the third cause of action for strict products liability on the ground that the product for was safe for its intended use is OVERRULED. The complaint alleges sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for strict products liability. Whether the chicken in question contained a defect rendering it hazardous and unfit for human consumption is a question of fact not appropriate for determination by demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BENJAMIN CRUZ V. GREAT NORTHERN EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTING, INC., ET AL.

Analysis Cruz relies on three theories of liability in the third cause of action, namely strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Each theory is addressed in turn. A. Strict Products Liability “The doctrine of strict products liability imposes strict liability in tort on the manufacturer of a defective product and others in the product’s chain of distribution.” (Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 173, 181-82.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2018

BRAYDER NAVARRETE ET AL VS MAYWOOD PLAZA MEAT MARKET ET AL

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s cause of action for Strict Liability does not state sufficient facts to support the elements of Strict Products Liability. In Opposition, Plaintiff states that he does not oppose Defendant’s demurrer. Conclusion Plaintiff’s FAC fails to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action for Strict Products Liability. Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2016

WILLIAM FRULLANI VS. SAN NUTRITION

Strict products liability: "Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 432, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443, sets forth the two tests for strict products liability in California. "[A] product may be found defective in design, so as to subject a manufacturer to strict liability for resulting injuries, under either of two alternative tests.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOSE VILLANUEVA VS LKQ BEST AUTOMOTIVE CORP

Strict Products Liability The elements of a cause of action for strict products liability are (1) a defect in the manufacture or design of the product or failure to warn, (2) causation, and (3) injury. Plaintiff must also show that (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. (Nelson v. Superior Court (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 689, 695.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BARBARA LOUGHLIN VS SANTA CATALINA ISLAND RESORT SERVICES IN

Strict products liability extends to anyone involved in an “integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise.” Arriaga v. CitiCapital Commercial Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1527, 1534. The theory also applies if a nonmanufacturing party plays an integral role in the producing and marketing enterprise of the produce and profits from placing the product into the stream of commerce. Arriaga at 1535.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2016

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

KARLA WALTERS VS JACKLYN CATHERIN BROWN

In light of this new evidence, Plaintiff moves the court to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for strict products liability against Sears Roebuck and add Sears Roebuck as an additional defendant. No opposition has been filed. Plaintiff alleges claims for: 1. General Negligence 2.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC VS WESTERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY COMPANY

Valley asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (3) strict products liability-manufacturing defect [count 1]; (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect [count 2]; (5) negligent products liability [count 1]; (6) negligent products liability [count 2]; and (7) equitable indemnity. (FAC, 8-49.) This demurrer challenges only the third and fourth causes of action. Western argues that S.C.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC VS WESTERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY COMPANY

Valley asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (3) strict products liability-manufacturing defect [count 1]; (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect [count 2]; (5) negligent products liability [count 1]; (6) negligent products liability [count 2]; and (7) equitable indemnity. (FAC, 8-49.) This demurrer challenges only the third and fourth causes of action. Western argues that S.C.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CYNTHIA PREISS ET AL VS NORTEK SECURITY & CONTROL LLC ET AL

CASE NO: BC647266 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff, Cynthia and Janet Preiss filed this action against Defendants, Nortek Security & Control, LLC and Critical Signal Technologies, Inc. for damages arising out of negligence and strict products liability. Plaintiffs allege they purchased a personal emergency response system from Defendants, but it did not work inside their home.

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2017

SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC VS WESTERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY COMPANY

Valley asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (3) strict products liability-manufacturing defect [count 1]; (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect [count 2]; (5) negligent products liability [count 1]; (6) negligent products liability [count 2]; and (7) equitable indemnity. (FAC, 8-49.) This demurrer challenges only the third and fourth causes of action. Western argues that S.C.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC VS WESTERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY COMPANY

Valley asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (3) strict products liability-manufacturing defect [count 1]; (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect [count 2]; (5) negligent products liability [count 1]; (6) negligent products liability [count 2]; and (7) equitable indemnity. (FAC, 8-49.) This demurrer challenges only the third and fourth causes of action. Western argues that S.C.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NICHOLAS LITTLE VS. DAVOL INCORPORATED ET AL

The court sustains Defendants' demurrer to the amended form complaint, with ten days leave to amend, to provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to state specifically the grounds upon which he asserts his strict products liability claim against C.R. Bard, Inc. and to allege facts that support a strict products liability claim based on a theory of defective manufacturing or on the theory that the defendant distributed the product without adequate warnings.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2015

MENDOZA V. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

There is law that questions whether a public entity can be sued for strict products liability at all, since negligence or culpability is not a necessary ingredient of strict products liability, and because strict products liability is a unique, court-fashioned doctrine, not statutory. (Tolan v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 980, 986-987.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

5601 W OLYMPIC HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION VS BURNSIDE LLC ET AL

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 08/06/15 against defendants for: (1) strict products liability; (2) strict components liability; and (3) negligence. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint which will eliminate the first and third cause of action and replace them with statutory claims in order to comply with a recent decision of the Supreme Court of California. (See Motion, p. 3:20-24.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2018

MEDINA, ET AL. V. LEE, ET AL.

First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action Plaintiffs allege against Defendant Pharmacy: (1) strict products liability – failure to warn (first cause of action); (2) strict products liability – defective product (second cause of action); (3) breach of implied warranty (fifth cause of action); and (4) breach of express warranty (sixth cause of action). A strict products liability cause of action will not lie against a pharmacy who provides a service of dispensing drugs prescribed by a physician.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2016

Medina, et al. v. Lee, et al. 30-2015-00827361-CU-JR-CJC

First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action Plaintiffs allege against Defendant Pharmacy: (1) strict products liability – failure to warn (first cause of action); (2) strict products liability – defective product (second cause of action); (3) breach of implied warranty (fifth cause of action); and (4) breach of express warranty (sixth cause of action). A strict products liability cause of action will not lie against a pharmacy who provides a service of dispensing drugs prescribed by a physician.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2016

CSAA INS. EXCHANGE VS. LEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., INC., ET AL

As plaintiff may not assert common law claims for negligence and strict products liability based on the allegations of the complaint, the demurrer must be sustained. Defendant asserts that plaintiff will also be unable to allege a valid statutory cause of action based on the failure to comply with prelitigation notice requirements under Civil Code section 910(a).

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    MICHAEL A. JACQUES

  • County

    Placer County, CA

PACIFIC OAKS LP ET AL VS MM MECHANICAL INC ET AL

As with the other claims in this case, Willow has also alleged all of the facts necessary to maintain causes of action for strict products liability and negligence.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2012

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

THE MARK CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS THE MARK CONDOMINIUMS LLC [E-FILE]

Absent causation Hensel Phelps Strict Products Liability and Negligence causes of action fail. The court summarily adjudicates the Strict Products Liability and Negligence, cause of action in favor of Tremco and against Hensel Phelps. Equitable Indemnity Contribution and Apportionment Declaratory Relief Tremco's motion for summary adjudication is denied.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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.