Sentences with phrase «strict liability for your injuries»

Anyone in the chain of a product's distribution may be held liable in strict liability for injuries caused by a product's defect.

The park may have the strongest cages and a slew of safety devices installed, but if one animal somehow escapes and attacks you, the park is held under strict liability for your injuries.

Not exact matches

In no case shall Slickster Magazine, our directors, officers, employees, affiliates, agents, contractors, interns, suppliers, service providers or licensors be liable for any injury, loss, claim, or any direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, special, or consequential damages of any kind, including, without limitation lost profits, lost revenue, lost savings, loss of data, replacement costs, or any similar damages, whether based in contract, tort (including negligence), strict liability or otherwise, arising from your use of any of the service or any products procured using the service, or for any other claim related in any way to your use of the service or any product, including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any content, or any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of the service or any content (or product) posted, transmitted, or otherwise made available via the service, even if advised of their possibility.

For example, in a strict liability case, there is a duty to prevent foreseeable injury by doing what a reasonable man of ordinary prudence would have done.

[Where state trooper took affirmative action of allowing police dog to be off leash, there is no immunity from suit; actions for personal injury caused by police dog will be analyzed under the dog bite common law, whether the owner of the dog knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities, as the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act does not permit actions under strict liability.]

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.

Many dog bite cases are strict liability cases, which means that the owner will automatically be liable for the injuries caused to you Continue Reading

Damages in this case will be determined by strict liability, which means the manufacturer is responsible for any injuries despite the level of care he took in making the products.

For a strict liability claim, you are asserting that the other party is liable for your injuries because they are responsible for the defeFor a strict liability claim, you are asserting that the other party is liable for your injuries because they are responsible for the defefor your injuries because they are responsible for the defefor the defect.

In Illinois, strict liability laws apply to construction vehicle manufacturers and they can be held liable for injuries caused by defective construction vehicles if:

The Dog Owners» Liability Act is provincial legislation in Ontario that imposes strict liability on dog owners for injuries caused by their pets.2 This means that proof of intent or negligence on the part of the dog owner is not needed to impose liability for injuries caused by thLiability Act is provincial legislation in Ontario that imposes strict liability on dog owners for injuries caused by their pets.2 This means that proof of intent or negligence on the part of the dog owner is not needed to impose liability for injuries caused by thliability on dog owners for injuries caused by their pets.2 This means that proof of intent or negligence on the part of the dog owner is not needed to impose liability for injuries caused by thliability for injuries caused by the animal.

Under California personal injury law, a person who sustains injury under the three categories listed above: intentional misconduct, negligence or strict liability may be able to seek financial compensation for their injuries.

TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL SmartAdvocate ® - The best plaintiff personal injury case management software AND / OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE SmartAdvocate ® - The best plaintiff personal injury case management software WEB SITE, WITH THE DELAY OR INABILITY TO USE THE SmartAdvocate ® - The best plaintiff personal injury case management software WEB SITE OR RELATED SERVICES, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SERVICES, OR FOR ANY INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS OBTAINED THROUGH THE SmartAdvocate ® - The best plaintiff personal injury case management software WEB SITE, OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SmartAdvocate ® - The best plaintiff personal injury case management software WEB SITE, WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF SmartAdvocate ® - The best plaintiff personal injury case management software OR ANY OF ITS SUPPLIERS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DAMAGES.

In California, for example, there is a strict liability dog bite statute that makes the dog owner liable for any injuries caused by his or her dog, except in certain circumstances such as prior provocation.

Furthermore, unlike the legal theory of strict liability, plaintiffs can collect compensation for injuries other than dog bites.

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.

Strict liability claims allow a plaintiff to hold certain defendants liable for a victim's injury or death without the necessity of proving negligence on the part of any of the defendants.

In Colorado, dog bite victims can collect compensation for their injuries by filing one of three types of claims: negligence, negligence per se, or strict liability.

Though product liability actions may be brought as breach of warranty, negligence, or strict liability claims, product liability actions to recover damages for a victim's personal injury or death are usually brought as strict liability claims.

The law puts strict liability on the owner of a dog that has bitten another person, generally making it the owner's responsibility for any injuries that were sustained during the attack.

Minnesota has a strict liability statute for injuries caused by dogs.This statute applies if the dog bites, chases or attacks the victim causing injury.

Many federal courts follow the Restatement (Third) of Torts for strict - liability actions, which may allow you to recover injuries sustained by your child as a result of an accident caused by a defect in an amusement - park ride, even if your child was only a bystander as opposed to a passenger on the ride.

After you're treated for your injuries, you may be able to obtain compensation from the dog's owner; in most locations, the owner is held to strict liability and most take responsibility.

New Jersey's strict liability statute specifically addresses recovering compensation for dog bite injuries.

On March 30, 2018, Judge Rya Zobel of the United States District Court (District of Massachusetts) issued a memorandum of decision on two Defendants» (NSTAR Electric, formerly Boston Edison, and General Electric) Motions for Summary Judgment in an asbestos personal injury and wrongful death matter, June Stearns and Clifford Stearns as Co-Executors of the Estate of Wayne Oliver v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al., that addresses multiple issues, including statute of repose, strict liability and liability of a premises owner.

Though product liability actions may be brought as negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty cases, product liability actions seeking compensation for a victim's personal injury or death are generally brought as strict liability actions.

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.

The concept of strict liability does not automatically mean the manufacturer is liable for any and all damages (injuries) related to the use of their product.

Strict liability means that the injured victim is not required to prove that the manufacturer was negligent which is, in general, the typical standard for personal injury claims.

Strict liability claims allow recovery for injuries as long as the consumer shows use of the product the way it was intended to be used and according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Depending upon the type of product that caused your injuries, you may be able to file a product liability claim against the responsible party for negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty.

California joins 27 other states with a strict liability law for dog bites — the law states California dog owners are strictly liable for dog bite injuries, even if the owner was not negligent and the dog has not bitten anyone before.

Strict liability means that a manufacturer, distributor, or seller is responsible for injuries caused by its product regardless of negligence.

Dog bite cases are great personal injury cases for recovery because the owner of the dog has strict liability.

Leading the briefing and oral argument in a case watched nationwide, Laurie won a ruling foreclosing strict liability and negligence liability (in most circumstances) for a manufacturer that did not make or sell an injury - causing product foreseeably used with its own.

Only an experienced Massachusetts injury liability attorney can tell you for certain whether your personal injury was a matter of negligence, intentional tort, or strict liability.

Those who did contain or collect zombies (as Hershel does inside his barn in The Walking Dead) could also face strict liability for any resulting injuries.

Courts began to apply the concept of strict liability to products in the 1960s and 1970s, determining that the costs of injuries from defective products should be borne by the companies responsible for the defects, not by the injured users.

4autoinsurancequote.com shall not be liable for any loss, damage, injury, or claim, nor any special, indirect, incidental, consequential, exemplary or punitive damages of any kind, whether such action is based in tort, contract, negligence, strict liability, or otherwise and even if 4autoinsurancequote.com has been advised of the possibility of such damages, which arises out of or relates in any way to: (i) the Site, materials in the Site, or the inability to use the Site; (ii) any Third - Party Site, materials in any Third - Party Site, or the inability to use any Third - Party Site; (iii) any defect, omission, error, interruption, delay, or computer virus; or, (iv) except as a result of 4autoinsurancequote.com's gross negligence or intentional actions, the unauthorized alteration of or access to your transmissions or personal data.