Sentences with phrase «strict liability theory»

Following Brooks v. Beech Aircraft Corp., New Mexico product liability claims can be brought using a strict liability theory.

The court explained that the state where the accident arose does not use a strict liability theory for product liability cases, so a plaintiff must proceed under an implied warranty or negligence theory.

Such actions are generally brought under a strict liability theory, which requires no showing of negligence on the part of a manufacturer or distributor.

When you are involved in a situation outside of a straightforward dog bite, you can try to recover compensation under the strict liability theory.

Product liability is a strict liability theory that does not require proof of negligent conduct but relates directly to product defect.

Not exact matches

Latin for «knowingly,» the theory behind scienter reflects common law strict liability claims, as well as the one bite rule.

Possible legal theories that can be argued in a products liability case include negligence (lack of reasonable care in the manufacture or sale of the product or in warning about the product), breach of warranty (failure to fulfill the terms of a promise regarding the product's performance), misrepresentation (giving consumers a false sense of security about a product's safety), and strict liability (under which the product's defect, although not the fault of the defendant, rendered the product unreasonably dangerous and the defendant is therefore responsible).

If these accidents are caused by the vehicles, it is possible that the families of people who are killed may be able to hold the companies liable under theories of negligence and strict products liability.

Because the child was not an intended user of the lighter, there could be no recovery under a theory of strict liability.

The ruling upheld the dismissal of design defect claims in a suit alleging that certain manufacturers are liable under theories of strict (product) liability and negligence.

Specifically, a party injured as a result of a defective medical product may seek damages against the manufacturer based on theories of a breach of a promise, express or implied, negligence, or strict product liability, including a failure to warn users of dangers.

The court's decision rejected a theory that would have exposed the Lead Underwriters to strict liability and impeded a normal, salutary process by which the trading of newly issued IPO shares is stabilized, to the benefit of both issuers and investors.

Products liability cases use one of three legal theories: negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty.

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

Alternatively, if strict liability does not apply, a dog owner may still be responsible for the acts of his or her animals under the legal theory of negligence.

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:

The circumstances surrounding the dog bite incident do matter, as liability may be found under two different legal theories: strict liability and negligence.

Strict Liability: In general, products liability cases are pursued under the theory of strict liabStrict Liability: In general, products liability cases are pursued under the theory of strict lLiability: In general, products liability cases are pursued under the theory of strict lliability cases are pursued under the theory of strict liabstrict liabilityliability.

Based on the theory of strict liability, a manufacturer is liable for any manufacturing defects that occur as a result of faulty construction, regardless of whether they took care throughout the manufacturing process.

In theory, we don't yet have strict products liability like in the U.S. Would you exclude that, if we ever get there?

If you have been injured using a consumer product, the seller of the product may be responsible under a «strict liability» legal theory.

Other theories include tortuous misrepresentation, breach of warranty and strict liability.

The primary occasion when the courts have rejected a plaintiff's effort to seek application of the doctrine of strict product liability, on the ground that there is no product, has been when he or she has tried to apply the theory to defective services, rather than defective goods.

The theory of strict liability holds your employer responsible for any damages resulting from their acts.

Some others are based on theory of strict liability.

There may be multiple theories of liability in these lawsuits, including strict product liability, negligence, marketing defect, failure to warn, manufacturing defect, design defect, or breach of warranty.

In some states, a company or person who designs, manufactures, inspects, distributes, or installs an item can be held responsible for a defective product under the theory of strict liability.

The laws in each state are different, but in general, there are four theories that drive most product liability cases: Negligence, Breach of Warranty, Misrepresentation and Strict Lliability cases: Negligence, Breach of Warranty, Misrepresentation and Strict LiabilityLiability.

The Drug and Medical Device Product Liability Deskbook includes: detailed coverage of: warning - related claims and defenses; other information - based theories; strict liability; FDA - related per se liability; preemption of common law tort claims by the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations; class actions in drug and medical device litigation; theories of liability asserted against entities other than manufacturers; practical issues involving litigation management; the use of expert witnesses; and many other importanLiability Deskbook includes: detailed coverage of: warning - related claims and defenses; other information - based theories; strict liability; FDA - related per se liability; preemption of common law tort claims by the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations; class actions in drug and medical device litigation; theories of liability asserted against entities other than manufacturers; practical issues involving litigation management; the use of expert witnesses; and many other importanliability; FDA - related per se liability; preemption of common law tort claims by the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations; class actions in drug and medical device litigation; theories of liability asserted against entities other than manufacturers; practical issues involving litigation management; the use of expert witnesses; and many other importanliability; preemption of common law tort claims by the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations; class actions in drug and medical device litigation; theories of liability asserted against entities other than manufacturers; practical issues involving litigation management; the use of expert witnesses; and many other importanliability asserted against entities other than manufacturers; practical issues involving litigation management; the use of expert witnesses; and many other important topics.

Many personal injury cases require the plaintiff to show that the defendant was negligent, but some types of personal injury claims use a theory of law known as strict liability.

Claims against NECC may rely on a strict products liability theory, alleging that the contaminated drugs contained a manufacturing defect.

In no event is Harrison Pensa or any third parties mentioned on the site liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, special, direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages, lost profits, or damages resulting from lost data or business interruption) resulting from the use or inability to use this site, the reliability of the internet, or the material contained on the site whether based on warranty, contract, tort, negligence, strict liability, operation of law, or any other legal theory, and whether or not Harrison Pensa is advised of the possibility of such damages.

Relying on the Conte opinion, he alleged theories of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty.

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.

In no event shall Policybazaar and / or its affiliates be liable for any direct, indirect, punitive, incidental, special, or consequential damages arising out of, or in any way connected with, your access to, display of or use of this site or with the delay or inability to access, display or use this site (including, but not limited to, your reliance upon opinions appearing on this site; any computer viruses, information, software, linked sites, products, and services obtained through this site; or otherwise arising out of the access to, display of or use of this site) whether based on a theory of negligence, contract, tort, strict liability, or otherwise, and even if Policybazaar and / or its affiliates their respective service providers have been advised of the possibility of such damages.

Limitation of Liability In no event and under no legal or equitable theory, whether in tort, contract, strict liability or otherwise, shall Jones Lang LaSalle be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of any use of the information contained herein, including, without limitation, damages for lost profits, loss of goodwill, loss of data, work stoppage, accuracy of results, or computer failure or malLiability In no event and under no legal or equitable theory, whether in tort, contract, strict liability or otherwise, shall Jones Lang LaSalle be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of any use of the information contained herein, including, without limitation, damages for lost profits, loss of goodwill, loss of data, work stoppage, accuracy of results, or computer failure or malliability or otherwise, shall Jones Lang LaSalle be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of any use of the information contained herein, including, without limitation, damages for lost profits, loss of goodwill, loss of data, work stoppage, accuracy of results, or computer failure or malfunction.

In no event and under no legal or equitable theory, whether in tort, contract, strict liability or otherwise, shall Jones Lang LaSalle be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of any use of the information contained herein, including, without limitation, damages for lost profits, loss of goodwill, loss of data, work stoppage, accuracy of results, or computer failure or malfunction.

In no event shall the aggregate liability of Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate LLC, whether in contract, warranty, tort (including negligence, whether active, passive or imputed), product liability, strict liability or other theory, arising out of or relating to the use of or inability to use the Web Site exceed any compensation you pay, if any, to Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate LLC for access to, or use of the Web Site.