Sentences with phrase «as strict products liability»

Not exact matches

In no case shall Slickster Magazine, our directors, officers, employees, affiliates, agents, contractors, interns, suppliers, service providers or licensors be liable for any injury, loss, claim, or any direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, special, or consequential damages of any kind, including, without limitation lost profits, lost revenue, lost savings, loss of data, replacement costs, or any similar damages, whether based in contract, tort (including negligence), strict liability or otherwise, arising from your use of any of the service or any products procured using the service, or for any other claim related in any way to your use of the service or any product, including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any content, or any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of the service or any content (or product) posted, transmitted, or otherwise made available via the service, even if advised of their possibility.

As part of a strict products liability lawsuit, you can sue anyone who moved the vehicle along the stream of commerce, including:

Specifically, a party injured as a result of a defective medical product may seek damages against the manufacturer based on theories of a breach of a promise, express or implied, negligence, or strict product liability, including a failure to warn users of dangers.

Strict liability may be applied in products liability cases, such as when a manufacturer or seller of a defective product puts that product into the stream of commerce and users are injured.

The high court is also unimpressed with the fact that the drug giving rise to the product liability was distributed by a California company, presumably because the cause of action in question in the case was brought against the manufacturer as a strict liability defective product claim, rather than as a claim against a seller of the product arising from a warranty that the product was free of defects arising under the Uniform Commercial Code or an express warranty.

A tort can be an intentional act, such as intentionally striking you with a baseball bat; a negligent act, such as a car accident caused by failing to see you crossing the street; or a strict liability tort, such as injuries from a dangerous product or a dog bite (in most states).

Though product liability actions may be brought as breach of warranty, negligence, or strict liability claims, product liability actions to recover damages for a victim's personal injury or death are usually brought as strict liability claims.

Served as second - chair trial counsel and secured defense verdict following seven - week jury trial in the California Superior Court for the County of Orange of action for strict and negligent products liability and negligence based on allegations of design defects, manufacturing defects, and warning defects.

Though product liability actions may be brought as negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty cases, product liability actions seeking compensation for a victim's personal injury or death are generally brought as strict liability actions.

Product liability actions seeking to recover damages for motorcyclists» personal injuries or death are usually brought as strict liability claims, which enable a plaintiff to establish the liability of certain defendants without the necessity of proving that any of the defendants was negligent in creating the defective vehicle that caused the motorcyclist's injury or death or in releasing it to the market.

Strict liability claims allow recovery for injuries as long as the consumer shows use of the product the way it was intended to be used and according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Act quickly as there are strict deadlines for filing a product liability lawsuit in the state.

Vermont has adopted the doctrine of strict products liability as embodied in Restatement (Second) of Torts S 402A.

However, this act was passed as a result of an EU Directive from 1985, which saw strict liability being put against any producers of defective products.

Attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendants will find comprehensive coverage of such matters as: the advantages and disadvantages of suits based on strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty; the use of state consumer protection statutes; the duty to warn and its innumerable ramifications; the liability of the manufacturers, retailers and other potential defendants in the distribution chain; successor liability; federal preemption of common law claims; monitoring product safety during design, manufacturing and distribution; causation theories in actions involving multiple manufacturers; product misuse and alteration; the elements of proof needed in an action; recovery for economic loss; punitive damages; and the government contractor defense.

(1) extending negligent misrepresentation beyond «business transactions» to product liability, unprecedented in Texas; (2) ignoring multiple US Supreme Court decisions that express and implied preemption operate independently (as discussed here) to dismiss implied preemption with nothing more than a cite to the Medtronic v. Lohr express preemption decision; (3) inventing some sort of state - law tort to second - guess the defendant following one FDA marketing approach (§ 510k clearance) over another (pre-market approval), unprecedented anywhere; (4) holding that the learned intermediary rule does not apply whenever a defendant «compensates» or «incentivizes» physicians to use its products, absent any Texas state or appellate authority; (5) imposing strict liability on an entity not in the product's chain of sale, contrary to Texas statute (§ 82.001 (2)-RRB-; (6) creating a claim for «tortious interference» with the physician - patient relationship, again utterly unprecedented; (7) creating «vicarious» breach of fiduciary duty for engaging doctors to serve as expert witnesses in mass tort litigation also involving their patients, ditto; and (8) construing a consulting agreement with a physician as «commercial bribery» to avoid the Texas cap on punitive damages, jaw - droppingly unprecedented.