Sentences with phrase «under strict products liability»

In most states, businesses are liable under strict products liability for simply selling contaminated food, even if they didn't do anything negligent in the process.

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.

It held that a plaintiff may only recover under strict liability if the product is unsafe for its intended user.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Drug manufacturers who fail to properly warn victims of side effects may be held accountable under strict liability for product defects laws, which do not require negligence to be proven.

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.

Florida courts impose different standards in assessing liability under negligence and strict products liability.

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.

Food poisoning cases generally fall under one of three categories; negligence, strict products liability, or breach of warranty.

Rather, under a standard of strict liability, the plaintiff must show that the product — in this case, the seat belt or airbag — was defective.

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

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.

If a product injures someone, under the terms of strict liability they do not have to prove intent or negligence, only that the product was defective through no fault of their own and that harm was done.