Sentences with phrase «strictly liable»

Landlords are no longer strictly liable for dog bites caused on their rental properties.

When owners obtain independent certification that «interim controls» or abatement has been performed, they'll no longer be held strictly liable, and insurers will be required to provide lead liability coverage for negligence claims brought against such owners.

Whether a seller will be held strictly liable for product defects varies from state to state.

Further and in the alternative, she alleged that the defendants were strictly liable to her pursuant to the Animals Act 1971, s 2 (2).

Lord Hoffmann held that it was wrong that the registrar of such property should be strictly liable in conversion — after all he was not at fault.

This would lead to commercial organisations being strictly liable for bribery carried out on their behalf.

The states handle dog bite cases differently with some following what is known as the one - bite rule and others, such as California, instead holding dog owners strictly liable when their dogs attack.

From cars and trucks to work machines and household items, these companies and professionals are strictly liable for malfunctions and defects that cause injury or failure to warn of hazards.

In Massachusetts, the owners and keepers of wild animals, or domesticated animals such as dogs, are held strictly liable for bites and other injuries caused by their pets.

Product designers and manufacturers are strictly liable for a design or manufacturing defect.

If the injured person can prove this, then some or all the parties along the «chain of distribution» may be strictly liable for the injuries caused as a result of the faulty airbag.

This is applicable to injuries due to a defective product — where manufacturers are strictly liable for the safety of their products — and dog bite cases, where the dog owner is responsible injuries even when no negligence can be proven.

Other times you may not be able to point to a specific act that led to injury, but you can demonstrate that a party is strictly liable for your safety in certain situations.

This means that if a dog attacks another person, the dog owner will be strictly liable for the actions of their dog.

It is disconcerting that the Court of Appeal in the case of Wood - v - TUI Travel 2017 (not a Hill Dickinson case) dismissed an appeal where the judge at first instance held that section 4 (2) of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (the Act) could be used against TUI in respect of a claim of contaminated hotel food in order to hold TUI strictly liable.

Under M.G.L. c. 140 § 155, a dog owner or keeper is strictly liable for injuries inflicted by a dog.

• Maryland appeals court says dog owners can be held strictly liable for pit bull attacks.

The only case put before the judge or before us was that the keeper was strictly liable under the Animals Act 1971.

Companies that design, manufacture, and sell trucks can be held strictly liable for any defects that result in injuries.

Michigan has a specific «dog bite» statute: Section 287.351 states that if a dog bites a person, the owner is held strictly liable.

For example, if a dog jumped on you, knocked you over, and injured you in the fall, the owner would not be deemed strictly liable.

The only case put before the judge or before us was that the keeper was strictly liable pursuant to the Animals Act 1971.

Even if the consumer used the product in a way that was not intended, the company who is responsible for putting it on the market can still be held strictly liable if those uses were foreseeable.

Companies who distribute products that contain manufacturing defects can be held strictly liable for any resulting injuries.

Municipalities are strictly liable for their Constitutional torts and are not eligible for qualified immunity.

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.

In California, anyone who designs, manufactures, or sells a defective product can be held strictly liable for any injuries that result.

In addition to liability for negligence, companies can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by their products.

When a Texas employer does not subscribe to workers» compensation coverage and an employee is injured on the job, the employer is held strictly liable for 100 % of the worker's damages if it can be shown that the employer was even 1 % responsible for the accident (such as failing to properly train employees, failing to supervise, etc).

The state of Texas adheres to the «one bite rule,» meaning that if a dog has previously bit someone (or even tried to) and the owner or keeper was aware of the animal's previous dangerous conduct, they can be held strictly liable for 100 % of the victim's injuries and financial damages should the dog cause injury to another person.

So, for example, one court held that a hospital is not strictly liable for injuries resulting from hidden defects o its premises, since the provision of a hospital room is in the nature of providing professional services rather than a product.

Manufacturers can be held strictly liable (meaning that no proof of negligence is required) if the elevator has a design defect or manufacturing defect, or if that company failed to warn users of known risks associated with using their elevator.

In legal terms, this means that the owner of the dog can be held strictly liable for any serious or fatal injuries that someone sustains as a result of their dog's bite.

Any company that puts a recreational vehicle out on the market can be held strictly liable for any injuries that are caused by a defect or danger in that product.

While a dogs owner or keeper is strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog, a third party can be liable only if he or she is negligent.

With regard to product liability cases (injuries caused by defective or unsafe products), manufacturers are in the best position to ensure the safety of their products prior to putting them on the market, and as such, they can be held strictly liable for any foreseeable injuries caused by a defect or safety flaw.

Under the New York Agriculture & Markets Law § 121:10, the owner or keeper of a dangerous dog is held strictly liable for the medical expenses that are a result of the attack.

Manufacturers are strictly liable for damages that result from defective products.

If a landlord or building owner fails to meet these minimum safety requirements and someone is subsequently injured on his stairs, the landlord or owner may be held strictly liable for the resulting injury.

Dog owners are held strictly liable for only medical and veterinary costs.

Though manufacturers are generally strictly liable for the actual damages caused by their products, punitive damage awards typically require a higher showing of reprehensible conduct.

Defective Products Manufacturers may be held strictly liable for injuries caused by defective products.

(Managing Clerk raided client account of # 200,000, partners strictly liable in conduct, breaches of Solicitors Accounts Rules, plea bargain, financial penalty).

In fact, California Civil Code section 3342 makes the owner of a dog strictly liable for any dog bite from the moment that ownership begins.

Many times, since the attack stemmed from a violation of a law like the one discussed above, owners may be held strictly liable.

Under new standard, owners of pit bulls, landlords and property owners are strictly liable for the..., Defense Digest, Vol.

In California, a dog owner is strictly liable for any dog bite regardless of whether he or she failed to protect others from the attack, or had no reason to know the dog was dangerous, provided that the victim was not trespassing or provoking the dog

When a manufacturer puts a defective product on the market and consumers are injured as a result, the manufacturer may be strictly liable on the basis of product liability law.

Also, persons or companies engaged in using explosives, storing dangerous substances, or keeping dangerous animals can be strictly liable for harm caused to others as a result of such activities.

If a defect exists, the manufacturer may be strictly liable for any resulting damages, regardless of whether they exercised extreme caution and care when manufacturing the product.