Sentences with phrase «strict products liability claim»

In her complaint against the hospital, the patient alleged a strict product liability claim based on the hospital's use of the BMP sponge without the LT - Cage.

Defended major appliance manufacturer against negligence and strict product liability claims

A federal judge says that a plaintiff's defective design, manufacturing design, failure to warn, negligence, marketing defect, and strict product liability claims in one pelvic mesh case against Boston Scientific Corp can proceed.

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.

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.

The high court is also unimpressed with the fact that the drug giving rise to the product liability was distributed by a California company, presumably because the cause of action in question in the case was brought against the manufacturer as a strict liability defective product claim, rather than as a claim against a seller of the product arising from a warranty that the product was free of defects arising under the Uniform Commercial Code or an express warranty.

Once we have completed our investigation, we will review your right to bring a product liability claim based on negligence or strict liability.

Negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty of fitness are generally the main bases for product liability claims.

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.

Products purchased second - hand are not eligible for strict liability claims.

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.

The woman's heir filed a wrongful death lawsuit, alleging negligence and strict product liability against Michelin and a negligence claim against the driver of the pickup.

Lawsuits for allegedly dangerous products typically either claim negligence in design or strict liability in manufacturing, according to FindLaw.

Product liability is generally considered a strict liability claim.

Claims based on strict liability must only prove that the product that harmed you was defective.

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.

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.

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.

Or, you may file a strict liability claim, arguing that the product was unreasonably dangerous.

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.

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

A claim for strict products liability requires proof, in the alternative, either of the ordinary consumer's expectations or of the risk - utility of a product.

Cases claiming that a product was defective, however, are generally based on strict liability.

Finally, the claims based on the product recall failed because Florida law does not recognize a duty of care in connection with a recall separate from a general duty to act with reasonable care, and Florida does not recognize a claim for strict liability for product recall at all.

He practices in the full range of complex commercial litigation, and his experience includes litigating claims for breach of contract, strict products liability, negligence, breach of warranty, false advertising, unfair competition and violations of California's Proposition 65.

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.

Plaintiff brought strict products liability and negligence claims involving an alleged failure to properly guard the subject machine.

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

Plaintiffs filed numerous Florida state law claims, including strict product liability, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, implied warranty, and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

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.