Lightfoot attorneys defended an aircraft
manufacturer in a product liability case arising from an allegedly defectively designed aircraft.
Serve as national counsel for a construction and mining equipment
manufacturer in product liability matters involving heavy equipment and warranty matters.
Attorneys in our Class Action Practice represent «household name» corporations in defense of consumer and false advertising class actions; Big Four accounting firms and corporate issuers in securities class actions; companies who have been accused of improperly disclosing customer data; employers alleged to have violated labor and employment laws; and industrial
manufacturers in products liability class and mass tort actions, among others.
Our experience ranges from representing these specialty
manufacturers in products liability lawsuits to environmental, intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, financing, economic development, local real estate law, employment, shareholder disputes, and corporate control issues.
Defense verdict on behalf of an automotive
manufacturer in a product liability case involving an infant seriously burned in a vehicular fire
Drafted motion for summary judgment on behalf of component part
manufacturer in a products liability case that resulted in voluntary dismissal of the plaintiff's claims against the manufacturer.
We defended a fuel pump
manufacturer in a product liability action arising out of a helicopter accident.
Successfully resolving a catastrophic personal injury claim on behalf of a snowboard binding
manufacturer in a products liability matter.
A products liability plaintiff's attorney will naturally be skeptical of
the manufacturer in a products liability case.
She also has experience conducting independent investigations on behalf of corporate clients, advising creditors on matters involving the Personal Property Security Act, and representing
manufacturers in product liability disputes.
Representation of various medical device
manufacturers in product liability cases ranging from implants to sterilizers.
Representation of numerous pesticide
manufacturers in product liability matters arising out of chemical exposure.
He has represented a large manufacturer of asbestos products in product liability and negligence cases and has represented a large elevator
manufacturer in product liability cases.
Defended aircraft
manufacturer in product liability litigation in state and federal courts arising from fatal crashes in general aviation.
He has a broad range of experience including vessel arrest, collision, pollution, tug and tow, bodily injury and cargo in addition to non-maritime contract, insurance and employment matters and defending auto
manufacturers in product liability claims.
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.
For more than 25 years, John has defended
manufacturers in product liability litigation in trial and appellate courts involving a multitude of products ranging from ATVs and RVs to suction vibrasorbers.
Except for a brief, misguided trip to the «dark side,» Rachel has spent her whole career defending drug and device
manufacturers in product liability litigation and in government actions arising from such litigation.
Elaine Adam focuses her practice on defending automotive
manufacturers in product liability and consumer actions.
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.
In other words, customers who bought a scanner or wireless networking gear would be protected from
liability for using the
product as the
manufacturer intended.
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 Asse
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 Asse
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 Asse
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 Asse
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.
One comment said that
manufacturers use such statements to suggest that the
product is suitable for individuals with celiac disease, while simultaneously attempting to avoid
liability for any gluten
in the
product that could result from cross-contact or cross-contamination during the manufacturing process.
, 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.»
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.
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.
Lightfoot attorneys defended a valve
manufacturer in a South Carolina
product liability case arising from an LP gas explosion.
«
Product liability cases like this one often unveil a pattern of defrauding consumers
in order to protect
manufacturer profits,» said Leopold.
A multi-faceted lawyer, Ms. Mullis has also represented large, international
manufacturers and suppliers
in both residential and commercial
product liability actions.
If defects are to blame, then a tire defect lawyer from our firm can assist you
in filing a
product liability claim against the
manufacturer.
In addition, Rebecca has been extensively involved in the defense of products liability claims, including representing fitness equipment and medical device manufacturer
In addition, Rebecca has been extensively involved
in the defense of products liability claims, including representing fitness equipment and medical device manufacturer
in the defense of
products liability claims, including representing fitness equipment and medical device
manufacturers.
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.
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 defec
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 defec
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 defec
in a
product -
liability action for the flame - burn injuries suffered by the child as a result of the defect.
We regularly defend automobile, heavy truck, bus, locomotive, and aircraft
manufacturers — as well as their component suppliers —
in high - stakes
product liability, commercial, and catastrophic injury litigation.
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.
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.
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.
Strict
liability, on the other hand, is when a
manufacturer puts a defective
product in the market when it poses an unreasonable danger.
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.
Products liability lawsuit against a Fortune 500 multinational
manufacturer based
in the United States.
She was also previously an attorney at Herzfeld & Rubin LLP
in the firm's complex Tort &
Product Liability group representing automotive
manufacturers.