Sentences with phrase «decision in a product liability»

A state appellate court recently issued a decision in a product liability case that was filed by the widow of a man who was killed while working at a factory.

Not exact matches

But experts on liability law are divided on what the court's decision, announced in a jargon - filled press release on 21 June, will mean for medical product liability in Europe.

While contractors had previously argued that negligence claims were barred by Florida's economic loss rule, the economic loss rule in Florida has been curtailed by the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Tiara Condominium Association v. Marsh & McClennan Companies, Inc. et al. and limited to application in product liability claims.

The targeted defendants in these product liability cases will most likely be the designers and manufacturers of these types of autonomous products and their systems and components, including particularly the designers and manufacturers who are responsible for the design of perception system radiuses and capabilities in those products, and their decision - making controller systems.

In the area of food product liability, what has not been resolved in the courts is what kind of onus is on the consumer to assess the claims being made by manufacturers and then make a common sense decision on whether or not to make a purchasIn the area of food product liability, what has not been resolved in the courts is what kind of onus is on the consumer to assess the claims being made by manufacturers and then make a common sense decision on whether or not to make a purchasin the courts is what kind of onus is on the consumer to assess the claims being made by manufacturers and then make a common sense decision on whether or not to make a purchase.

During its 2005 - 06 session, the Wisconsin Legislature responded expeditiously by passing legislation that not only reversed the Supreme Court decisions, but also attempted to move Wisconsin into the mainstream in the areas of product liability law and the admission of expert opinion evidence.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wyeth v. Levine that FDA approval does not preempt state tort liability for drug makers, state court decisions like this one will be an important battle ground in pharmaceutical companies» product liability litigation.

As the manufacturer and retailer were not named in this decision, it is not, strictly speaking, a products liability case.

In these cases, contracting a Louisville product liability attorney can prove to be a sound decision in order to ensure that consumer rights are protected, justice is served, and victims are compensated for their troubleIn these cases, contracting a Louisville product liability attorney can prove to be a sound decision in order to ensure that consumer rights are protected, justice is served, and victims are compensated for their troublein order to ensure that consumer rights are protected, justice is served, and victims are compensated for their troubles.

Act 2, including: changes to Wisconsin's product liability laws; adding Daubert standards for cases tried in Wisconsin involving expert opinion and evidence; eliminating the controversial «risk contribution» theory created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the 2005 Thomas v. Mallett decision; placing caps on punitive damages; and reducing frivolous lawsuits by holding parties liable for costs and fees for filing frivolous claims.

In March 2000, she obtained substantial sanctions against a national manufacturer and its attorneys for discovery abuses in a product liability case — a decision that has received statewide and national attentioIn March 2000, she obtained substantial sanctions against a national manufacturer and its attorneys for discovery abuses in a product liability case — a decision that has received statewide and national attentioin a product liability case — a decision that has received statewide and national attention.

ICI in the European Commission's Methacrylates cartel investigation resulting in the scope of liability in terms of products and duration being substantially reduced in the Commission's decision, preparation of the appeal to the General Court but ceased after ICI was acquired by Akzo.

Fortunately for products liability bloggers, in the rapid, ever - changing world of litigation, there is rarely a day that passes without something newsworthy, whether it be a new court decision, an interesting verdict, a product recall (an augury of imminent litigation), or a story on a future Plaintiff's new and «inventive» use of a product that, predictably, went awry.

«It's a similar story in # 6 New Jersey, where bad high court decisions have boosted consumer litigation and undermined arbitration agreements in seemingly lawful contracts, and a lax standard for expert testimony continues to attract many products liability plaintiffs from across the country.

(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.