Sentences with phrase «unreasonably dangerous product»

In an equipment accident case, a third - party action would likely come in the form of a product liability lawsuit asserting a claim of a defective or unreasonably dangerous product.

If you or your loved one has suffered a personal injury or wrongful death as a result of a defective product or unreasonably dangerous product, feel free to email John or Chris, or call collect at [phone] for a free initial consultation and case evaluation.

A defective and unreasonably dangerous product can also form the basis of a wrongful death lawsuit.

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.

I don't quite get the connection between the Abnormal Use blog («An Unreasonably Dangerous Products Liability Blog)» and faux - but - über attorney Jackie Chiles from «Seinfeld» but who really cares?

Of course, since I learned about my new jetpack via a post by Kevin Couch on the Abnormal Use: An Unreasonably Dangerous Products Liability Blog, I now also have a lot of the tricky legal issues worked out, as well.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has recalled many unreasonably dangerous products for inadequate labeling or instructions.

As product liability lawyers John and Chris work closely with some of the most knowledgeable and renowned technical experts in the country and have a proven track record of significant recoveries on behalf of those injured by defective or unreasonably dangerous products.

Not exact matches

They can also be made against manufacturer's of products used on construction sites, which are defective and unreasonably dangerous.

The product had an «unreasonably dangerous» defect that injured the user of the product.

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).

Attorney Peter Ventura represents clients in personal injury or wrongful death litigation involving unreasonably dangerous or defective products in the home, at work and on the road.

The other type of product liability claim that might be applicable in the case of an injuries from ATV accidents is if the injuries are the result of «unreasonably dangerous» design.

To receive compensation for harm caused by a defective product, a victim must provide evidence that the defect caused harm and was «unreasonably dangerous.»

Some of the things a judge or jury will look at to determine whether the product was «unreasonably dangerous» are whether the utility of the product outweighed the danger, whether it could have been made safer without undermining the utility, and whether a safer design was feasible.

Those products would be «unreasonably dangerous,» and our injury lawyers can help Syracuse consumers establish the liability of a manufacturer or other corporation.

The laws have changed from caveat emptor («let the buyer beware») to Strict Liability for manufacturing defects that make a product unreasonably dangerous.

The focus is instead on the product itself; was it unreasonably dangerous.

The failure to include such warnings is considered to render the product unreasonably dangerous — and, thus, defective — under product - liability law.

The product is manufactured correctly, but because of the way it was conceived it is unreasonably dangerous to a user or consumer when used for its intended purpose.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the product was unreasonably dangerous and that it was a legal cause of the husband's lung disease.

Second, a product can be unreasonably dangerous because of a design defect.

First, a product can be unreasonably dangerous because of a manufacturing defect.

A design defect occurs when the entire line of products produced by the manufacturer is unreasonably dangerous.

Finally, a product can be rendered unreasonably dangerous because of inadequate instructions or warnings.

To recover compensation, the plaintiff must show that the product was designed or manufactured in an unreasonably dangerous manner or that the defendant failed to include appropriate warnings and instructions with the product.

Even when a vehicle or vehicle component has been designed and manufactured in strict compliance with current industry standards and applicable regulations, the vehicle may still be found defective in a personal - injury or wrongful - death products - liability action if it is determined to contain a defect in its design, manufacture, or warnings that renders it unreasonably dangerous for consumers» use.

In Maine, a manufacturer or seller who sells products «in a defective condition» that is «unreasonably dangerous» to an expected user or consumer can be held liable for the physical injuries that person sustains.

If a company produces or sells a product that is defective or unreasonably dangerous without proper warnings, this can constitute a breach of duty.

If you or a loved one has been injured or killed by a defective or unreasonably dangerous consumer product, you may be entitled to compensation from the manufacturer.

One of these is whether the product was unreasonably dangerous in its design.

If a manufacturer has not provided adequate warning of the potential danger of a product, the product may be found unreasonably dangerous based on this lack of warning.

In Texas, manufacturers are not liable for design defects unless there is a safer alternative design and the defect makes the product unreasonably dangerous such that its risks outweigh its usefulness.

If the safer design is a newer development, however, it will not support a claim that a product is unreasonably dangerous in its design.

A design defect is a flaw in the original blueprint of a product that causes it to be unreasonably dangerous and creates a hazard for potential users.

In Texas, to prove a product liability case, a plaintiff must show the product was defective, the product reached the plaintiff in a defective condition, the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous, and the defect caused the plaintiff's damages.

Your lawyer's job is to prove that you were injured by the product, that it was unreasonably dangerous or defective under the circumstances, and that you will need compensation in a certain amount to cover the cost of your treatment and recovery, your future losses and medical needs, and your pain and suffering.

In some cases, the defective packaging of a product may be determined in a product - liability action to have rendered the product unreasonably dangerous, and thus defective, for the consumer's use.

Anyone who sells products «in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous» to the expected user or consumer is subject to liability for the physical injuries that person sustains.

Products that are unreasonably dangerous when used as they were intended to be used may constitute defective pProducts that are unreasonably dangerous when used as they were intended to be used may constitute defective productsproducts.

At Moffitt & Phillips, PLLC, we represent people who have been injured or killed by defective products or unsafe products that have design defects (intended design is unreasonably dangerous), manufacturing defects (product does not conform to the designer's or manufacturer's specifications), or marketing defects (improper or misleading labels, insufficient instructions, or failure to warn about a product's hidden dangers.)

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

Sometimes the product is unreasonably dangerous or defective.

A defective product under Idaho law is a device or piece of equipment that is unreasonably dangerous to people or property.

In addition, [defendant] asserts there is no separate «failure to test claim» apart from the duty to design and manufacture a product that is not defective and unreasonably dangerous.

We agree, for if a product is not in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user, an alleged failure to test can not be the proximate cause of an injury.

A product may be deemed «defective» if it is unreasonably dangerous when you use it as intended.

Design defects: This type of case involves a product that was manufactured as intended but the design concept was unreasonably dangerous.