Sentences with phrase «strict liability statute»

In Massachusetts, a third party such as a landlord, is not liable under the Massachusetts strict liability statute governing dogs.

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

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.

South Carolina has a «strict liability statute» when it comes to dog bite cases.

California holds to a strict liability statute when it comes to dog attacks.

California has what is known as a «strict liability statute» when it comes to dog attacks.

Not exact matches

Nonetheless, C.B. Fleet Company may be held liable for negligence under pharmaceutical statutes or be subject to strict product liability laws, in which case negligence need not be proven.

For example, because the casebook I use to teach Torts33 begins with strict liability, my students» first writing assignment is based on a statute that imposes strict liability for dog bites.34 This connection between the two classes has sometimes led to a need to «tweak» the Torts syllabus so that the order of the material we cover fits better with the timing of the writing assignments (which I discuss in more detail below).

[128] Rather, the statute must be examined with a view to determining whether it was Parliament's intention to make the administrative contravention one of strict or absolute liability.

The state of California has a strict liability dog bite statute, which means that whenever a dog bites someone, its owner is responsible.

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.

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

If the attack occurs on the dog owner's own property, the statute relieves the owner of strict liability if:

While Florida's statute for dog bites does exercise strict liability, there are a couple of instances in which a dog owner may not be held liable if their dog bites another person.

This statute holds true regardless of whether or not a dog owner has prior knowledge of the dog's aggressiveness, which makes Florida a strict liability state when it comes to dog bites.

Florida has a specific legal statute that makes dog owners virtual insurers of their dog's conduct, imposing «strict liability.»

New York is considered a «mixed» state, which means that the one - bite rule is mixed with the strict liability law in regard to the state's dog bite statute.

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.

Banking practice, which has developed over many years, takes into account the existing risk of strict liability in conversion for chattels as modified by statute, eg FA 1889 and CA 1957.

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.

(1) extending negligent misrepresentation beyond «business transactions» to product liability, unprecedented in Texas; (2) ignoring multiple US Supreme Court decisions that express and implied preemption operate independently (as discussed here) to dismiss implied preemption with nothing more than a cite to the Medtronic v. Lohr express preemption decision; (3) inventing some sort of state - law tort to second - guess the defendant following one FDA marketing approach (§ 510k clearance) over another (pre-market approval), unprecedented anywhere; (4) holding that the learned intermediary rule does not apply whenever a defendant «compensates» or «incentivizes» physicians to use its products, absent any Texas state or appellate authority; (5) imposing strict liability on an entity not in the product's chain of sale, contrary to Texas statute (§ 82.001 (2)-RRB-; (6) creating a claim for «tortious interference» with the physician - patient relationship, again utterly unprecedented; (7) creating «vicarious» breach of fiduciary duty for engaging doctors to serve as expert witnesses in mass tort litigation also involving their patients, ditto; and (8) construing a consulting agreement with a physician as «commercial bribery» to avoid the Texas cap on punitive damages, jaw - droppingly unprecedented.