Sentences with phrase «defendants in product liability»

David Marshall specializes in representing defendants in product liability litigation, including toxic torts, and long - term care facilities, assisted living facilities and related specialties.

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.

Determining the defendant in a product liability case is not a matter of choosing one liable party over another; any party involved in a defective product's chain of distribution may be held accountable through a product liability lawsuit.

He typically represents defendants in products liability, toxic exposure, and other tort cases, often in complex litigation.

Not exact matches

After a harrowing two - and - a-half-year legal battle, Dave and Amanda Repsher — clients of Ogborn Mihm and Robb & Robb of Kansas City — obtained a $ 100 Million settlement from the defendants in the Repshers» product liability / personal injury lawsuit.

At Brickley Law, our New Canaan product liability lawyer identifies all the potential defendants in the chain of commerce and design a strategy aimed at obtaining prompt and fair compensation for our clients in New Canaan, Norwalk, and throughout Connecticut.

Possible legal theories that can be argued in a products liability case include negligence (lack of reasonable care in the manufacture or sale of the product or in warning about the product), breach of warranty (failure to fulfill the terms of a promise regarding the product's performance), misrepresentation (giving consumers a false sense of security about a product's safety), and strict liability (under which the product's defect, although not the fault of the defendant, rendered the product unreasonably dangerous and the defendant is therefore responsible).

Our trial litigation practice includes representation of defendants in personal injury and premises liability matters, product liability claims and wrongful death claims.

In this case an expert was testifying in a product liability case that the defendant's products had never caught fire before (as the plaintiff's hadIn this case an expert was testifying in a product liability case that the defendant's products had never caught fire before (as the plaintiff's hadin a product liability case that the defendant's products had never caught fire before (as the plaintiff's had).

On Friday, June 1, 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming summary judgment on behalf of defendant Rockwell Automation, Inc. in a product liability lawsuit brought in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama in 2003.

Instead of analyzing whether California has jurisdiction over the product liability situation, in general, the high court decides that the determination regarding whether California has jurisdiction over a suit against a particular defendant must be made on a plaintiff by plaintiff basis when «specific jurisdiction» rather than «general jurisdiction» is involved.

2008)-- Denial of manufacturer defendant's motion for summary judgment in cases arising from explosion at facility in Groton, Connecticut on grounds that there existed genuine issues of fact as to product liability and recklessness counts of case against manufacturer based on its claimed failure to account for and disclose relevant safety and storage information of risks involved in the transport and storage of chemical reagent at ambient temperatures.

The Best Lawyers in America by Woodward White, Inc. listed Banks as the «2016 Birmingham Lawyer of the Year for Product Liability Litigation Defendants»

Punitive damages are sometimes recoverable from defendants in product - liability actions, as well.

In re Biomet was a products liability case in which the defendant began review by using search terms to cull nearly 20 million documents over the objection of Plaintiffs» Steering CommitteIn re Biomet was a products liability case in which the defendant began review by using search terms to cull nearly 20 million documents over the objection of Plaintiffs» Steering Committein which the defendant began review by using search terms to cull nearly 20 million documents over the objection of Plaintiffs» Steering Committee.

We focus on building key relationships with law firms and managing legal affairs as best we can and the type of legal work that Navistar Canada is involved in doesn't really warrant a large department because it's defendant - side litigation on the product liability side and some corporate - driven transactions, be it tax or finance, that are not routine.

Two of the firm's partners were selected as «Lawyers of the Year» in their practice area: John F. Mariani in West Palm Beach for Product Liability Litigation — Defendants and Dilip Patel for Immigration Law.

A frequent speaker on topics including trial strategy, expert witnesses, product liability, and accident reconstruction, Mr. Craft has appeared on television, radio, and in several major newspapers across the country discussing distracted driving, discovery abuse by defendants, vehicle rollovers, roof crush, seatbelts, child restraint systems, airbags, back - over deaths, and other litigation topics.

735 ILCS 5/13-213 (c): Alteration, modification or change No product liability action based on any theory or doctrine to recover for injury or damage claimed to have resulted from an alteration, modification, or change of the product unit after the date of first sale, lease, or delivery of possession of the product unit to its initial user, consumer, or other nonseller may be limited or barred by subsection (b) if the action is commenced within the applicable limitation period; and, in any event, within 10 years from the date the alteration, modification, or change was made, unless defendant expressly has warranted or promised the product for a longer period and the action is brought within that period.

Mark counts among his many successes his role as co-counsel in a complex products liability action, which resulted in the largest personal injury award in the State of Delaware at the time of its completion, $ 17.5 Million against a number of national defendants.

There is a big difference between representing the plaintiffs in product liability cases in Missouri to representing the defendants, or in other words, the big manufacturers and distributors and companies that got you into this position of having to make a claim.

The plaintiffs» product liability and negligence claims went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

The firm will also take on cases regarding product liability and will go up against insurance companies and defendants in motorcycle accidents.

In this products liability suit arising from the death of a landscape employee who was killed when a 2007 Hustler Z zero - turn radius riding mower rolled over, a Harrisonburg U.S. District Court grants summary judgment to defendant Excel Industries, manufacturer...

In the liability phase of the trial, the welding rod defendants were the only defendants that chose to defend their product and contended that welding rods do not release asbestos fibers that are respirable and the mesothelioma was caused by extensive exposure to asbestos insulation products and not welding rods.

Mr. Simmons has represented plaintiffs and defendants in complex tort litigation, product liability litigation, and commercial litigation throughout Texas and nationally.

Many different defendants can be held liable in product liability cases.

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.

Bob earned extensive experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury cases, including those involving motor vehicle collisions, aviation accidents, products liability, premises liability, medical, and legal malpractice, civil rights, bad faith and defamation.

Earlier this month, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a written opinion affirming an $ 11 million jury verdict in a product liability case brought by a man who was injured while using a ladder manufactured by the defendant.

In this products liability case, the Plaintiffs sought discovery of all relevant communications between any of the Defendants» foreign subsidiaries and any foreign regulatory bodies over a long period of time.

In a restaurant customer's products liability suit alleging damages from eating contaminated oysters at a Roanoke restaurant, a Roanoke U.S. District Court denies third - party defendant seafood company's motion to strike the third - party plaintiff restaurant's demand for a jury trial.

In drug and device product liability litigation, discovery burdens are unequal and fall more heavily on defendants, and there is no reason to think that will change under the MIDPP.

Matt has represented both defendants and plaintiffs in class proceedings, and also engineers, developers and public authorities in real estate and construction disputes, investment advisors and brokerages in lawsuits involving negligent advice and fraud, insurance brokers and disability insurers in cases concerning a wide range of insurance products, and manufacturers in product liability cases.

In Gariepy, Justice Nordheimer declined to certify the action as a class proceeding on the basis that the determination of whether the defendant's products were defective did not significantly advance the overall determination of liability, as there were a myriad of reasons why a class member's plumbing system might fail.

We represent plaintiffs or defendants in jury and non-jury trials and in appeals on commercial issues including corporate and securities transactions, toxic tort, products and product liability, construction, civil rights, employment, media, entertainment, real estate, takings and project development.

In addition, he has handled personal injury and commercial litigation matters for plaintiffs and defendants, contractual and employment disputes, construction cases, product liability cases, sexual misconduct cases, as well as assorted other professional negligence claims (accounting and legal).

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.

Further, since a branded defendant did not sell the injurious product, there's not even an arguable basis for «stream of commerce» jurisdiction in innovator liability cases.

(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.

products liability and complex commercial litigation cases Represented both plaintiffs and defendants in virtualt...