Sentences with phrase «liability of the manufacturer»

Our litigation and trial lawyers are experienced with the common and statutory laws involving the prospective liability of manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of products to purchasers, users, and bystanders for personal injury and property damage caused by alleged defects in those products.

Those products would be «unreasonably dangerous,» and our injury lawyers can help Syracuse consumers establish the liability of a manufacturer or other corporation.

Issues arose as to the cause of the fire and the respective liabilities of the manufacturer, distributor and dealer.

Questions Emerge About the Safety of Self - Driving Cars and the Liability of Manufacturers and Drivers

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.

Not exact matches

Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such forward - looking statements and that should be considered in evaluating our outlook include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) our ability to continue to grow our business and execute our growth strategy, including the timing, execution, and profitability of new and maturing programs; 2) our ability to perform our obligations under our new and maturing commercial, business aircraft, and military development programs, and the related recurring production; 3) our ability to accurately estimate and manage performance, cost, and revenue under our contracts, including our ability to achieve certain cost reductions with respect to the B787 program; 4) margin pressures and the potential for additional forward losses on new and maturing programs; 5) our ability to accommodate, and the cost of accommodating, announced increases in the build rates of certain aircraft; 6) the effect on aircraft demand and build rates of changing customer preferences for business aircraft, including the effect of global economic conditions on the business aircraft market and expanding conflicts or political unrest in the Middle East or Asia; 7) customer cancellations or deferrals as a result of global economic uncertainty or otherwise; 8) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which we operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; 9) the success and timely execution of key milestones such as the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, including our ability to obtain in a timely fashion any required regulatory or other third party approvals for the consummation of our announced acquisition of Asco, and customer adherence to their announced schedules; 10) our ability to successfully negotiate, or re-negotiate, future pricing under our supply agreements with Boeing and our other customers; 11) our ability to enter into profitable supply arrangements with additional customers; 12) the ability of all parties to satisfy their performance requirements under existing supply contracts with our two major customers, Boeing and Airbus, and other customers, and the risk of nonpayment by such customers; 13) any adverse impact on Boeing's and Airbus» production of aircraft resulting from cancellations, deferrals, or reduced orders by their customers or from labor disputes, domestic or international hostilities, or acts of terrorism; 14) any adverse impact on the demand for air travel or our operations from the outbreak of diseases or epidemic or pandemic outbreaks; 15) our ability to avoid or recover from cyber-based or other security attacks, information technology failures, or other disruptions; 16) returns on pension plan assets and the impact of future discount rate changes on pension obligations; 17) our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance debt, including our ability to obtain the debt to finance the purchase price for our announced acquisition of Asco on favorable terms or at all; 18) competition from commercial aerospace original equipment manufacturers and other aerostructures suppliers; 19) the effect of governmental laws, such as U.S. export control laws and U.S. and foreign anti-bribery laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and environmental laws and agency regulations, both in the U.S. and abroad; 20) the effect of changes in tax law, such as the effect of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the «TCJA») that was enacted on December 22, 2017, and changes to the interpretations of or guidance related thereto, and the Company's ability to accurately calculate and estimate the effect of such changes; 21) any reduction in our credit ratings; 22) our dependence on our suppliers, as well as the cost and availability of raw materials and purchased components; 23) our ability to recruit and retain a critical mass of highly - skilled employees and our relationships with the unions representing many of our employees; 24) spending by the U.S. and other governments on defense; 25) the possibility that our cash flows and our credit facility may not be adequate for our additional capital needs or for payment of interest on, and principal of, our indebtedness; 26) our exposure under our revolving credit facility to higher interest payments should interest rates increase substantially; 27) the effectiveness of any interest rate hedging programs; 28) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; 29) the outcome or impact of ongoing or future litigation, claims, and regulatory actions; 30) exposure to potential product liability and warranty claims; 31) our ability to effectively assess, manage and integrate acquisitions that we pursue, including our ability to successfully integrate the Asco business and generate synergies and other cost savings; 32) our ability to consummate our announced acquisition of Asco in a timely matter while avoiding any unexpected costs, charges, expenses, adverse changes to business relationships and other business disruptions for ourselves and Asco as a result of the acquisition; 33) our ability to continue selling certain receivables through our supplier financing program; 34) the risks of doing business internationally, including fluctuations in foreign current exchange rates, impositions of tariffs or embargoes, compliance with foreign laws, and domestic and foreign government policies; and 35) our ability to complete the proposed accelerated stock repurchase plan, among other things.

A separate panel looks at liability when things do go wrong, Eric Hibbard, CTO for security and privacy at the Federal Trade Commission, will examine emerging theories of liability for manufacturers and vendors when a hacked device turns fatal.

Many factors could cause BlackBerry's actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward - looking statements, including, without limitation: BlackBerry's ability to enhance its current products and services, or develop new products and services in a timely manner or at competitive prices, including risks related to new product introductions; risks related to BlackBerry's ability to mitigate the impact of the anticipated decline in BlackBerry's infrastructure access fees on its consolidated revenue by developing an integrated services and software offering; intense competition, rapid change and significant strategic alliances within BlackBerry's industry; BlackBerry's reliance on carrier partners and distributors; risks associated with BlackBerry's foreign operations, including risks related to recent political and economic developments in Venezuela and the impact of foreign currency restrictions; risks relating to network disruptions and other business interruptions, including costs, potential liabilities, lost revenues and reputational damage associated with service interruptions; risks related to BlackBerry's ability to implement and to realize the anticipated benefits of its CORE program; BlackBerry's ability to maintain or increase its cash balance; security risks; BlackBerry's ability to attract and retain key personnel; risks related to intellectual property rights; BlackBerry's ability to expand and manage BlackBerry ® World ™; risks related to the collection, storage, transmission, use and disclosure of confidential and personal information; BlackBerry's ability to manage inventory and asset risk; BlackBerry's reliance on suppliers of functional components for its products and risks relating to its supply chain; BlackBerry's ability to obtain rights to use software or components supplied by third parties; BlackBerry's ability to successfully maintain and enhance its brand; risks related to government regulations, including regulations relating to encryption technology; BlackBerry's ability to continue to adapt to recent board and management changes and headcount reductions; reliance on strategic alliances with third - party network infrastructure developers, software platform vendors and service platform vendors; BlackBerry's reliance on third - party manufacturers; potential defects and vulnerabilities in BlackBerry's products; risks related to litigation, including litigation claims arising from BlackBerry's practice of providing forward - looking guidance; potential charges relating to the impairment of intangible assets recorded on BlackBerry's balance sheet; risks as a result of actions of activist shareholders; government regulation of wireless spectrum and radio frequencies; risks related to economic and geopolitical conditions; risks associated with acquisitions; foreign exchange risks; and difficulties in forecasting BlackBerry's financial results given the rapid technological changes, evolving industry standards, intense competition and short product life cycles that characterize the wireless communications industry.

Solely for the purposes of the product governance requirements contained within: (a) EU Directive 2014 / 65 / EU on markets in financial instruments, as amended, or MiFID II; (b) Articles 9 and 10 of Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2017/593 supplementing MiFID II; and (c) local implementing measures, together, the MiFID II Product Governance Requirements, and disclaiming all and any liability, whether arising in tort, contract or otherwise, which any «manufacturer» (for the purposes of the MiFID II Product Governance Requirements) may otherwise have with respect thereto, the ADSs and ordinary shares have been subject to a product approval process, which has determined that such securities are: (i) compatible with an end target market of retail investors and investors who meet the criteria of professional clients and eligible counterparties, each as defined in MiFID II; and (ii) eligible for distribution through all distribution channels as are permitted by MiFID II, or the Target Market Assessment.

It's common for retailers to require their suppliers to have a product liability policy explained in the first scenario above because if a product fails as a result of a manufacturing flaw or design flaw, they want to make sure there is a layer of protection between the manufacturer or importer and themselves and that their supplier will be able to handle the financial responsibilities of a product failure including paying any fines or legal defense costs.

The sad reality, as I explain in detail in my article, is that NOCSAE, by its own admission, is as concerned with the liability of helmet manufacturers as it is with player safety, not surprising given the super-heated legal environment in which they now operate.

, and now allows companies which make add - on products for football helmets to make their own certification of compliance with the NOCSAE standards on a helmet model, as long as the certification is done according to NOCSAE standards, and as long as the manufacturer assumes responsibility (in other words, potential legal liability) for the helmet / add - on combination.

The long answer is that, it is true that the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) initially decided in July 2013 that modification of helmets with third - party after - market add - ons, such as impact sensors installed inside a helmet or to its exterior, would be viewed as voiding the helmet manufacturer's certification, and that the certification could only be regained if the helmet was retested by the manufacturer with the add - on, NOCSAE later issued a press release clarifying that position: Instead of automatically voiding the certification, NOCSAE decided it would leave it up to helmet manufacturers to decide whether a particular third - party add - on affixed to the helmet, such as a impact sensor, voided its certification of compliance with NOCSAE's standard, and now allows companies which make add - on products for football helmets to make their own certification of compliance with the NOCSAE standards on a helmet model, as long as the certification is done according to NOCSAE standards, and as long as the manufacturer assumes responsibility (in other words, potential legal liability) for the helmet / add - on combination.

IBFAN's legal advisor, Graham Ross, gave the following opinion: «Even if the manufacturers have indeed followed «highest standards», product liability laws still require clear warnings, especially in connection with products, such as formula, over which consumers can be expected to be highly concerned at all levels of risk.»

Marketing anything for babies under 6 months carries a lot of liability for manufacturers and therefore they are often unwilling to place written recommendation on their labeling that recommends infants less than 6 months use the product.

In the 25 years we've been writing about juvenile products like bassinets and cribs, we've never seen a manufacturer of a sleep space that requires you to sign away legal liability for using it with your baby.

As a minimum, when approving automated vehicle testing on public roads, manufacturers must accept that software in their vehicles attracts the same liability as the physical components of the vehicle.

Unlike other medical treatments for which companies are driven to keep their products safe because of liability threats, their brief says «the Vaccine Program itself provides no incentive to vaccine manufacturers to make their vaccines safer.»

Judge Carlos Lucero, in a partial dissent, argued against such immunity: «The notion that a device manufacturer is immune from liability for harm caused by its device when the manufacturer has pushed the device for a use that the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] never approved is neither logical nor consistent with the Supreme Court's prior rulings about the scope of preemption of claims arising from harm caused by medical devices.»

The case was closely watched on all sides because it challenged the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA); that act sought to protect manufacturers from a flood of liability claims — and thereby stabilize the vaccine market — but also preserve a family's right to be compensated for vaccine injuries.

In the long run, «from the manufacturer's perspective,» Smith says, «what they may be looking at is a bigger slice of what we all hope will be a much smaller [liability] pie.»

Under this framework, which will likely be used by an increasing number courts in the future, the failure of a manufacturer to identify and mitigate a dangerous «foreseeable» risk is more akin to negligence than to strict liability.

Considering that these systems can mean the difference between a car driving along and smashing into the back of another vehicle, concerns over liability will probably keep adaptive cruise control firmly within the domain of the original equipment manufacturers for the time being.

The Casualty segment covers a variety of policies including commercial and personal umbrella; general liability for manufacturers, contractors and REITs; commercial transportation; professional services; liability for executive directors and officers, and medical professionals; and property and casualty insurance for small - to - medium sized retail businesses.

While a self - driving car operated by artificial intelligence that crashes into a pole might be properly addressed by traditional notions of manufacturer's liability, the use of machine learning in other areas of society that are litigated might be much more complex, especially where they are used to assist decision making by data that can never be fully understood by the user.

Second, and most important, motor vehicle litigation will move from a system where accidents are assessed based on driver negligence to a products liability system, where manufacturers bear more of the burden for failure of things such as sensors and warning systems.

From Firestone's faulty tires to VW's «safe diesel,» there have been many cases of manufacturer liability over the past several decades.

If a defect in a product is found to have been a cause of a child's flame - burn injury, the manufacturer of the product and anyone in the chain of the product's distribution may be found liable for the injuries suffered by the child in a product - liability action.

Many of the patients affected by NSF / NSD have filed gadolinium lawsuits or joined class action gadolinium lawsuits claiming that the manufacturers of gadolinium - based contrast agents were negligent or violated product liability and / or pharmaceutical liability statutes.

«Product liability cases like this one often unveil a pattern of defrauding consumers in order to protect manufacturer profits,» said Leopold.

Products liability law holds the manufacturers and distributers of unexpectedly defective or dangerous products responsible for injuring an unsuspecting consumer.

In addition, Rebecca has been extensively involved in the defense of products liability claims, including representing fitness equipment and medical device manufacturers.

However, when the SUV rollover accident was caused by a product defect, then the case is governed by strict liability, meaning that the manufacturer is responsible for the damages their product caused regardless of whether they were at fault or not.

The manufacturer of a product that contains a defect in the product's manufacture or design or as a result of the manufacturer's or seller's failure to warn of the product's dangers may be held liable in a product liability action for injuries sustained by a child as a result of the child's use of or exposure to the product.

With deep experience in product liability matters and class action litigation, including catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases, as well as consumer fraud, he represents national and international companies, including manufacturers of motor vehicles, power tools, pharmaceuticals, clothing, glass products, outdoor power equipment, and industrial machinery.

Represented national manufacturer of snow blowers in a products liability claim charging that product defect lead to amputation of several fingers on the plaintiff's master hand.

He suggested a Products Liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of the Cordless Vacuum Cleaner.

The consumer goods will be vulnerable to product liability lawsuit unless distributors, manufacturers, and sellers take proper action concerning the safety of the children's products they produce and sell to the customers.

In some cases, a vehicle defect may be determined to have been a cause of a vehicle accident and / or resulting injuries, so that liability may be attached to the vehicle's manufacturer and anyone in the chain of the vehicle's distribution.

A product liability case against a pharmaceutical or medical device manufacturer may be appropriate if the manufacturer failed to warn the public about inherent dangers in a drug, hid information about serious drug implications from the FDA, failed to follow marketing protocol, or allowed a product to be introduced to the market when the manufacturer knew or should have known of the product's potential danger.

In either case, the manufacturer of the defective shield or grate and anyone in the chain of the product's distribution may be held liable in a product - liability action for the flame - burn injuries suffered by the child as a result of the defect.

It is our goal to create a totally unique law firm designed to defend, better than any other law firm, manufacturers of specific types of advanced products, including artificial intelligence and other autonomous products in product liability cases.

This aspect of a product liability cases focuses on the manufacturer's decisions when making the product.

In Mixed Ruling for Food Manufacturers, the Ninth Circuit Affirms Decertification of Damages Class While Keeping Door Open for Individual Claims - Product Liability Litigation Update

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.

Serve as national trial and coordinating counsel for a leading manufacturer of food equipment systems in product liability matters, including the defense of product designs for meat grinders, mixers, slicers, saws, tenderizers and deep fat fryers.

Although products liability law has evolved from the days of «caveat emptor» (let the buyer beware) to the imposition in appropriate cases of «strict liability,» under which manufacturers are responsible for injuries caused by their defective or unreasonably dangerous products even if they were not negligent, the personal injury plaintiff still has a job to do.

Counsel representing national manufacturer of textiles and home furnishings in a case in which the Supreme Court favorably redefined the law governing employer liability for workplace sexual harassment.

As with all product liability claims, ATV accident claims are difficult to win because manufacturers are often equipped with a team of qualified lawyers.

If a defective product is found to have been a cause of a fetus's death, the manufacturer of the product and anyone in the chain of the product's distribution may be found liable in a product - liability action for the fetus's death.