Sentences with phrase «strict liability injuries»

Under Colorado law, negligence and strict liability injuries have a statute of limitations of two (2) years.

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.

Massachusetts uses strict liability in dog bite cases which is a lower standard of proof, to bring a personal injury claim against the dog's owner.

The experienced attorneys at SL Chapman have the knowledge to properly evaluate your injury and determine if your claim involves strict liability, negligence, or a breach of warranty.

[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.]

Some personal injury cases, however, depend on 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 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.

Personal injury is the term used to describe physical and mental injuries that occur because of someone else's negligence, intentional actions, or strict liability.

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.

In cases of dog bite injuries, Kentucky has a strict liability law that is different than the laws in many states.

The Connecticut Product Liability Act imposes what is essentially strict liability upon product sellers when a defect was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, the defect existed when the product left the seller, the seller did not expect the product to be substantially altered after the product left the seller, and the product was notLiability Act imposes what is essentially strict liability upon product sellers when a defect was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, the defect existed when the product left the seller, the seller did not expect the product to be substantially altered after the product left the seller, and the product was notliability upon product sellers when a defect was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, the defect existed when the product left the seller, the seller did not expect the product to be substantially altered after the product left the seller, and the product was not altered.

ISSUE: Would a strict liability test be more inequitable to injury claimants and force landlords to install fire alarms?

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.

Many defective product cases rely on a principle called strict liability, which basically means that if you can prove that the product was defective when it left the control of the manufacturer or seller, and the defect caused your injuries, you may be able to obtain compensation.

Although less common, the two other potential causes of personal injuries are intentional misconduct and strict liability.

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.

«Strict liability» means the liability exists regardless of whether the injury was intentional or negligent, such as in a workers» compensation case.

A common example of a strict liability personal injury claim would be one based upon a dog bite, where the dog owner would be held accountable even if he or she had no prior knowledge of a dog's violence or aggression.

If you have been attacked or bitten by a dog in Massachusetts and have suffered injuries, the owner of the dog may be held liable under MA law - Massachusetts is a strict liability state with respect to dog bites.

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

When blasting results in direct damages or injuries, meaning injuries caused by debris, explosives, etc., a strict liability standard applies.

In addition to other areas of personal injury litigation, Keesal, Young & Logan has extensive experience in the area of strict products liability.

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.

A tort can be an intentional act, such as intentionally striking you with a baseball bat; a negligent act, such as a car accident caused by failing to see you crossing the street; or a strict liability tort, such as injuries from a dangerous product or a dog bite (in most states).

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.

Even when a plaintiff can prove that an injury satisfies the criterion of a severe bodily injury, he or she can be barred from collecting damages under the legal theory of strict liability if:

However, plaintiffs who file strict liability dog bite claims will need to provide evidence demonstrating that their injury satisfies the definition of serious bodily injury.

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.

Broken and fractured bones, as well as third degree burns are also considered serious bodily injuries under the terms of Colorado's strict liability dog bite law.

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.

Strict liability is typically versus product producers whose product might have triggered some injury; neglect is against anyone who could have avoided the injury and intentional incorrect is against anyone or anything that has actually intentionally triggered the injury.

In situations where a dog bite results in serious injury or death, the injured party or his or her relatives can file a strict liability claim against the animal's owner.

Depending on the case, a personal injury claim may be filed as a result of negligent conduct, intentional wrongdoing or strict liability.

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.

Some commercially available products are held to a «strict liability» standard, so such claims may be easier to win than other types of personal injury cases.

Strict liability is a means by which a plaintiff doesn't need to prove negligence, but instead shows the vehicle or one of its parts was unreasonably dangerous, and this defect resulted in injuries.

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.

Defendants may also be found liable under a strict liability if the injuries sustained by a child were caused by the manufacturer's failure to warn of dangers associated with its use.

Personal injury claims may be brought on three different legal grounds: negligence, intentional wrong, or strict liability.

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.