Sentences with phrase «standard for product liability»

In New York, the standard for product liability is generally «strict liability», not simple negligence.

Not exact matches

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.

A policyholder could find itself in the position of recalling on its own initiative or being asked by FDA to recall based on this «reasonable probability» standard, but not being able to satisfy the definition of «accidental contamination» under its specialty policy because it can not prove its product was W With the frequency of costly product recalls on the rise, many companies have considered purchasing specialty recall coverage to secure coverage for certain recall - related losses that are often excluded from general liability and property policies.

, 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.

I have found bar candidates spending precious bar - prep days struggling with First Amendment protections for advertising when they couldn't spot an offer for a unilateral contract or explain the relevance of industry standards in products liability cases.

For instance, in a personal injury case involving a defective product, the final jury instructions will include information on both personal injury law and products liability law, as well as an explanation of the general negligence standard that may apply to both personal injury and products liability cases.

Even when a vehicle or vehicle component has been designed and manufactured in strict compliance with current industry standards and applicable regulations, the vehicle may still be found defective in a personal - injury or wrongful - death products - liability action if it is determined to contain a defect in its design, manufacture, or warnings that renders it unreasonably dangerous for consumers» use.

Maritime law observes a strict liability standard with regards to product liability claims and even provides causes of action for wrongful death that are available to non-seamen injured on the high seas.

The Magnuson - Moss Act (1973) sets minimum standards for product warranties, makes a company that financed the sale responsible for product defects, and creates liability for «implied» warranties (when the circumstances show that a warranty of the product was intended) as well as express (stated) warranties.

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.

«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.

General Aggregate Limit: The maximum amount of insurance payable during the policy period for losses (other than those arising from the products — completed operations hazards as covered under the standard commercial general liability policy)

The Korean Supreme Court ruled that the standard is «contractual terms that would typically affect a reasonable consumer's decision to enter into a contract or how prices are set for the concerned transaction (for example, product warranty or disclaimer of liability).»