A Duty To Warn For The Other Manufacturer's Product?
|
|
- Cora Chandler
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY Phone: Fax: A Duty To Warn For The Other Manufacturer's Product? Law360, New York (May 18, 2012, 1:18 PM ET) -- A recent decision from a California appellate court may have handed plaintiffs a victory after a string of decisions limiting the tort liability of manufacturers to products that they actually manufactured. In Shields v. Hennessy Industries Inc., the appellate court permitted a claim to proceed against the manufacturer of a brake-arcing machine under the theory that the machine was designed for the purpose of grinding asbestos-containing brake linings and caused plaintiffs to inhale asbestos fibers. (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2012) This decision pursues a narrow exception to O Neil v. Crane Co., in which the California Supreme Court adopted the general rule that a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn of hazards associated with another manufacturer s products. 266 P.3d 987 (Cal. 2012). Although Shields represents the application of a narrow exception to a very unique piece of equipment, manufacturers of products should be aware of attempts by plaintiffs to develop novel theories to expand the scope of a manufacturer s liability for hazards associated with the products of other manufacturers. O Neil and Typical Duty to Warn Claims by Plaintiffs Across the country, plaintiffs have pushed a theory of liability under which a manufacturer has a duty to warn about the dangers associated with using its product with another manufacturer s product. For example, in O Neil, the plaintiff sued a pump manufacturer and valve manufacturer, alleging that third-party products, such as external insulation and other asbestos-containing parts, were added to the manufacturers products post-sale. Although the defendants did not produce the asbestos-containing products, the plaintiff sought to impose liability on the defendants based solely on the use of their products in conjunction with other asbestos-containing products. Plaintiff s argument was that, because it was foreseeable the products would be used in conjunction with asbestos-containing products, the defendants owed the plaintiff a duty to warn about the potential health consequences of breathing asbestos dust.
2 The California Supreme Court unanimously rejected the plaintiff s argument for an expanded duty to warn and preserved the traditional tort principle that a manufacturer does not owe a duty to warn of dangers or defects associated with another manufacturer s product. Several other jurisdictions already had reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 198 F.3d 493 (Wash. 2008); Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 197 P.3d 127 (Wash. 2008); Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005); Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 703 A.2d 1315 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998); see also Baughman v. Gen. Motors. Corp., 780 F.2d 1131 (4th Cir. 1986); Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 591 N.E.2d 222 (N.Y. 1992). In adopting the rule, the court explained that products liability law requires proof that the plaintiff suffered an injury caused by a defect in the defendant s product. In this case, it was undisputed that the defendants did not manufacture or supply the asbestoscontaining products to which plaintiff was exposed. Any asbestos-containing gaskets and insulation which were originally supplied with the products would have been replaced with replacement parts due to the frequency of repairs and maintenance by the time the plaintiff came in contact with the defendants products. Further, the court noted that recognizing an expanded duty to warn would represent an unprecedented expansion of liability. Such an expansion does not comport with traditional policy goals which seek to impose liability on the manufacturers who actually derive economic benefit from the sale of the products that injure the plaintiffs. Generally, liability is assigned to a party in the chain of distribution of a product because that party is in the best position to absorb the cost of liability into the cost of production of the products. The Exception: Liability Exists When a Product Contributes to the Risk of Harm Although California in O Neil joined the growing number of jurisdictions adopting the general rule, the court left the door open to a few potential scenarios in which a defendant might be held to owe a plaintiff a duty to warn. First, the court carefully noted that the plaintiff did not present any evidence that the defendant manufacturers ever supplied asbestos-containing replacement parts. Implicitly, a manufacturer who supplied a product may be liable as an entity in the chain of distribution under traditional tort principles. Similarly, plaintiffs did not present any evidence that the defendants products required asbestoscontaining parts to operate properly. Finally, the court in O Neil seemingly approved of the scenario in which plaintiffs can allege that a manufacturer owes a duty when that manufacturer s product, in combination with another product, contributes to the creation of the harm to the plaintiff. For example, plaintiffs have sought recovery for injuries associated with breathing metallic dust on the theory that a manufacturer of a grinder should warn of the danger of breathing metallic dust from the accessories degrading. See, e.g., Tellez-Cordova v. Campbell-Hausfeld/Scott Fetzger Co., 28 Cal. Rtpr. 3d 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). The plaintiffs in Shields successfully pressed this exception of Tellez-Cordova to their advantage.
3 In Tellez-Cordova, the plaintiff sought recovery for his development of pulmonary fibrosis, which he attributed to his exposure to airborne toxic substances released from metal parts on grinders, sanders and saws during his work as a lamp-maker. Plaintiff alleged breathing metallic dust created from two sources: (1) the metal workpiece which was the subject of the grinding and sanding, and (2) the metal abrasive wheels and discs on the defendants grinders, sanders and saws. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants, manufacturers of abrasive products with which the plaintiff worked, were liable for failure to warn of hazards and negligently designing their tools which released respirable metallic dust from the metal being ground and from the abrasive wheels and discs which performed the grinding. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court s dismissal for failure to state a claim, and rejected the defendants argument that a manufacturer need not warn of defects in the products of another manufacturer. Instead, the court reasoned that plaintiff alleged that the metallic dust emanated from not only the metal workpiece but also from the metal abrasive wheels and discs attached to the grinders and sanders. Thus, defendants had a duty to warn of the risks of using the products. Because the California Supreme Court cited Tellez-Cordova with approval, the case represents a narrow exception to the general principle. Plaintiffs Apply the Exception in Shields v. Hennessy Industries Inc. In Shields, plaintiffs successfully framed their case as an exception to the general rule of O Neil. The plaintiffs were mechanics, ironworkers or pipefitters with asbestos-related diseases. Plaintiffs alleged that Hennessy negligently designed and manufactured an asbestos brake shoe grinding machine which failed to protect the plaintiffs from inhalation of asbestos fibers caused to be released from asbestos-containing brake linings. Because brake shoe linings contained asbestos during the relevant time periods, plaintiffs argued that the only intended use of the machine was for grinding brake shoe linings. Thus, the intended use of the machine to grind asbestos-containing brake shoe linings created the exposure to asbestos and the risk of harm to plaintiffs. The trial court, applying the holding of O Neil, granted judgment on the pleadings to Hennessy because Hennessy did not manufacture or distribute any product made with asbestos. The Court of Appeal reversed and found the plaintiffs properly alleged facts sufficient to state a claim consistent with O Neil and Tellez-Cordova. Taking the allegations of the complaints as true, the court distinguished the claims from O Neil because the causes of action contend that Hennessy distributed a machine directly to consumers designed only to grind asbestos-containing brake linings, a machine that was defective because its intended operation necessarily released asbestos fibers into the air and was not a machine manufactured for use as a component in another finished product.
4 The sole intended use of the machine, the court reasoned, was for an activity known to Hennessy to pose an unreasonable risk of harm. The court then articulated the exception to the general rule: A product manufacturer may not be held liable in strict liability or negligence for harm caused by another manufacturer s product unless the defendant s own product contributed substantially to the harm or the defendant participated substantially in creating a harmful combined use of the products. According to the appellate court, the theory against Hennessy, then, fits conceptually within the framework of O Neil, which explained that it is reasonable to expect a manufacturer to give warnings when the defendant s product was intended to be used with another product for the very activity that created a hazardous situation. Shields should be viewed with a cautious eye and could ultimately be overturned by the California Supreme Court. First, because the appellate review focused on the grant of judgment on the pleadings, the allegations in the plaintiffs complaint against Hennessy were accepted as true. Plaintiffs in Shields and other similar cases must meet their burden to demonstrate that the product s sole intended use contributed to the risk of harm. Furthermore, Shields is one step removed from Tellez-Cordova because the brake shoe grinding machine was not composed of asbestos and did not subsequently result in respirable asbestos fibers in contrast to the metallic dust from the abrasive wheels and discs used with the tools at issue in Tellez- Cordova. Under the logic of Shields, a manufacturer of saws intended for use solely to cut wood must warn users of the dangers of inhaling wood dust. But such an expansion of liability has already been criticized by the California Supreme Court in O Neil, who reasoned that to find such a duty to warn would lead to an absurd result that manufacturers of the saws used to cut insulation would become the next targets of asbestos lawsuits. Thus, Shields is a likely candidate for review by the California Supreme Court. Additionally, as a result of pressing this narrow exception, plaintiffs have transformed what had been a failure to warn claim into a defective design claim. In Shields, plaintiffs alleged that the machine was defective because it did not have reasonable, protective design features such as a dust-collection system or a grinding mechanism to convert asbestos fibers into nonharmful forsterite. This contrasts with the failure to warn claims against the manufacturers in O Neil. The viability of such defective design claims in any given case remains to be seen, but the important takeaway is that defendants must be alert to plaintiffs developing these types of claims. Although one federal judge has recently rejected a similar attempt to use an exception outlined in O Neil (Floyd v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., E.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2012), the Shields decision gives plaintiffs a new strategy to pursue. As a result, manufacturers should challenge a plaintiff s theory at the outset of a case to properly frame the issue for the court as either a traditional duty to warn theory or a defective design claim. Then, through careful discovery, defense counsel can create the factual record necessary to demonstrate that the general rule applies to bar tort liability or, alternatively, that the plaintiff lacks evidence that the manufacturer s product contributed to creating the risk of harm.
5 -- By Joseph W. Hovermill and Matthew R. Schroll, Miles & Stockbridge PC Joseph Hovermill is a principal and chairman of the products liability and mass torts group in Miles & Stockbridge s Baltimore office. Matthew Schroll is an associate in the same office. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. All Content , Portfolio Media, Inc.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 6/13/14 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE FRANCISCO URIARTE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B244257 (Los Angeles County
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 5/9/16 Rondon v. Hennessy Industries CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More informationA Damn Sham: When Opposition Motions Preclude Removal
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Damn Sham: When Opposition Motions Preclude Removal
More information728 April 20, 2016 No. 166 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
728 April 20, 2016 No. 166 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Paul George McKENZIE and Dana Jeunea McKenzie, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. A. W. CHESTERSON COMPANY, et al., Defendants,
More informationASBESTOS LITIGATION ALERT
A. PARTIES FILE RESPONSES TO AMICI BRIEFS IN CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT COMPONENT PARTS DISPUTE O Neil, et al., v. Crane Co., et al.,, No. S177401, petition filed (Calif. Sup. Ct. Sept. 18, 2009) In a dispute
More informationASBESTOS CLAIMS AND LITIGATION RECENT TRENDS IN THE LAW: EXTERNAL INSULATION CLAIMS SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
ASBESTOS CLAIMS AND LITIGATION RECENT TRENDS IN THE LAW: EXTERNAL INSULATION CLAIMS SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS April 1, 2008 I. INTRODUCTION Over the last several years, there has been an increase in a number
More informationExpansion Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Suppliers
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Expansion Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Suppliers
More informationUsing A Contractual Consequential Damage Limitation
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Using A Contractual Consequential Damage Limitation
More information2016 WL (N.Y.Sup.) (Trial Order) Supreme Court, New York. New York County
2016 WL 3802961 (N.Y.Sup.) (Trial Order) Supreme Court, New York. New York County In Re: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. Walter MILLER, Plaintiff, V. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, et al., Defendants. No. 190087/2014.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE: ASEBESTOS LITIGATION DONNA F. WALLS, individually and No. 389, 2016 as the Executrix of the Estate of JOHN W. WALLS, JR., deceased, and COLLIN WALLS,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/15/ :12 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 99 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/15/2016 05:12 PM INDEX NO. 190113/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 99 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION ) ) ALLEN T. and TOMMIE ) HOOFMAN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N12C-04-243 ASB ) AIR & LIQUID
More informationCase No. 11-cv CRB ORDER DENYING FOSTER WHEELER S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs,
Case :-cv-0-crb Document Filed 0/0/ Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 GERALDINE HILT, as Wrongful Death Heir, and as Successor-in-Interest to ROBERT
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI)
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 15-1988 IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI) Steven Frankenberger, Special Administrator for the Estate of Howard
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/ :26 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2016 03:26 PM INDEX NO. 190113/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
More informationTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv MR-DLH
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00157-MR-DLH HOWARD MILTON MOORE, JR. and ) LENA MOORE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) MEMORANDUM
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-879 In the Supreme Court of the United States GLORIA GAIL KURNS, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE M. CORSON, DECEASED, ET AL., Petitioners, v. RAILROAD FRICTION PRODUCTS CORPORATION, ET AL. Respondents.
More informationCase 2:17-cv JFW-SS Document 104 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:1392 CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case 2:17-cv-02227-JFW-SS Document 104 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:1392 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS-6 CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. CV 17-2227-JFW(SSx) Date:
More informationDon't Overlook Pleading Challenges In State Pharma Suits
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Don't Overlook Pleading Challenges In State
More informationPRODUCTS LIABILITY FAILURE TO WARN STRICT LIABILITY NEGLIGENCE:
Ruth Belche May, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Philip Royce May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., etc., et al., No. 5, September Term, 2015, Opinion by Adkins, J. PRODUCTS LIABILITY FAILURE
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Torts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Manufacturer designed and manufactured
More informationCase 2:13-cv DDP-VBK Document 864 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:36038 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-ddp-vbk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #:0 O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 VICTORIA LUND, individually and as successor-in-interest to WILLIAM LUND, deceased;
More informationCase 3:12-cv DJH-DW Document 207 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 6848
Case 3:12-cv-00724-DJH-DW Document 207 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 6848 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CAROL LEE STALLINGS, Individually and as
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
FUOCO v. 3M CORPORATION et al Doc. 96 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY J OSEPHINE E. FUOCO, individually : Hon. J oseph H. Rodriguez and As Executrix of the Estate of J oseph R. Fuoco,
More informationState of New York Court of Appeals
State of New York Court of Appeals MEMORANDUM This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. No. 123 In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation.
More informationEnforcing Exculpatory Provisions Against Meritless Claims
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Enforcing Exculpatory Provisions Against Meritless
More informationBANKRUPTCY TRUST TRANSPARENCY: GARLOCK DECISION
CLM 2016 SOUTHWEST CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 3-4, 2016 IN DALLAS, TEXAS BANKRUPTCY TRUST TRANSPARENCY: GARLOCK DECISION I. Historical Perspective. A. Johns-Manville, Bankruptcies, and Garlock. In 1982 the Reagan
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No
Case: 14-3270 Document: 003112445421 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-3270 In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI) CAROL J. ZELLNER,
More informationCase 1:12-cv JFK-HBP Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:12-cv-06088-JFK-HBP Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------X CHEYANNE HOLZWORTH, : as Personal Representative
More informationASBESTOS LITIGATION ALERT
A. STUDY PREDICTS NEARLY 30,000 NEW ASBESTOS CLAIMS WILL BE FILED OVER NEXT THIRTY-FIVE TO FIFTY YEARS A study by TowersWatson, a risk and financial management consulting company, finds that close to thirty
More informationIn Re: Asbestos Products
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-26-2016 In Re: Asbestos Products Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAR 29 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS SANDRA BROWN COULBOURN, surviving wife and on behalf of decedent's
More informationMaximize Your Contract s Exculpatory Provisions
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Maximize Your Contract s Exculpatory Provisions Law360,
More informationComponent Part Supplier Claims and Asbestos Equipment Litigation
ACI s 18 th National Forum on Asbestos Claims & Litigation January 15-16, 2015 Component Part Supplier Claims and Asbestos Equipment Litigation C. Matt Alva Associate Matushek, Nilles & Sinars Tweeting
More informationInnovator Liability: A Pandora s Box For Pharma Cos.?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Innovator Liability: A Pandora s Box For
More informationData Breach Class Actions: Addressing Future Injury Risk
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Data Breach Class Actions: Addressing Future
More information3 Tips For Understanding Price Fixing Conspiracy Liability
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 3 Tips For Understanding Price Fixing Conspiracy Liability
More information2 Noerr-Pennington Rulings Affirm Narrow Scope Of Immunity
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 2 Noerr-Pennington Rulings Affirm Narrow
More information) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO MAP ) ) PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 96-30047-MAP ) ) PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT a. There exists a factual dispute requiring jury determination when the defendant last parted with
More informationThe Battle Over 3rd-Party Releases Continues
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Battle Over 3rd-Party Releases Continues
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 11-187 WILBERT BATES, ET UX. VERSUS E. D. BULLARD COMPANY, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON DAVIS,
More informationHigh Court Clarifies Tort Law But Skirts Broad Claims
Portfolio Media, Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com High Court Clarifies Tort Law But Skirts Broad Claims
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :23 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2015 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 190245/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------X
More information5 Red Flags In Pharmaceutical Settlements
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 5 Red Flags In Pharmaceutical Settlements Law360,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ANDREW V. KOCHERA, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS vs. Case No. 14-0029-SMY-SCW GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This
More informationIn re: Asbestos Prod Liability
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-17-2014 In re: Asbestos Prod Liability Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-4423 Follow
More informationBoston College Journal of Law & Social Justice
Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice Volume 36 Issue 3 Electronic Supplement Article 4 April 2016 A Tort Report: Christ v. Exxon Mobil and the Extension of the Discovery Rule to Third-Party Representatives
More information* * * * * * * COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/EDWARD A. ALBERES, ET AL.
EDWARD ANTHONY ALBERES, ET AL. VERSUS ANCO INSULATIONS, INC., ET AL. * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2013-CA-1549 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
More informationLowe v AERCO Intl., Inc NY Slip Op 30391(U) February 20, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /04 Judge: Sherry Klein
Lowe v AERCO Intl., Inc. 2013 NY Slip Op 30391(U) February 20, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 110194/04 Judge: Sherry Klein Heitler Republished from New York State Unified Court System's
More informationMatter of Macaluso 2017 NY Slip Op 31095(U) May 17, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /15 Judge: Manuel J. Mendez Cases posted
Matter of Macaluso 2017 NY Slip Op 31095( May 17, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 190245/15 Judge: Manuel J. Mendez Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(,
More informationCertiorari Denied, No. 29,314, July 21, Released for Publication August 2, Corrections August 2, COUNSEL
VIGIL V. STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, 2005-NMCA-096, 138 N.M. 63, 116 P.3d 854 ROBERT E. VIGIL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO and DOMINGO P. MARTINEZ, STATE AUDITOR,
More informationThink Twice About That Liability Disclaimer
Page 1 of 5 Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Think Twice About That Liability Disclaimer
More informationCLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must keep an open
CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS I. GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must keep
More informationPreemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JIMMY R. MITCHELL AND CONNIE MITCHELL, his wife v. Plaintiffs, ATWOOD & MORILL CO., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 15-958-SLR-SRF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 7/8/14 Modified and Certified for Publication 7/21/14 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE ROSE MARIE GANOE et al., Plaintiffs
More informationCase 3:13-cv SMY-SCW Document 400 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #6092
Case 3:13-cv-01338-SMY-SCW Document 400 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #6092 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SHARON BELL, Executor of the Estate of Mr. Richard
More informationA Cautionary Tale For Law Firms Engaging With Prosecutors
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Cautionary Tale For Law Firms Engaging
More informationHow Escobar Reframes FCA's Materiality Standard
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How Escobar Reframes FCA's Materiality Standard
More informationThe Supreme Court's Personal Jurisdiction Reckoning
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Supreme Court's Personal Jurisdiction Reckoning
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationA Potentially Far-Reaching Impact For New NYC Freelance Law
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Potentially Far-Reaching Impact For New
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/25/ :05 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2018
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT LEWIS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 7660 North State Street Lowville, New York 13367-1396 HON. CHARLES C. MERRELL e (3W 3%-5366 Far (315) 266-U75 DEBORAH W. EARL Supreme Court Justice
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-0-srb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Sandra Brown Coulbourn, et al., No. CV--0-PCT-SRB Plaintiffs, ORDER v. Air & Liquid Systems
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION NATHANIAL HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. DEERE & CO., et al., Defendants. C.A. No. N14C-03-220 ASB May 10, 2017 Upon Defendant Deere & Company
More informationMaster File No ORDER NO. 9 Plaintiffs' Master Set of Requests for Production to Defendants
Master File No. 2004-70000 In Re: TEXAS STATE SILICA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Document Relates to All Cases IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 295 JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Judge Tracy Christopher
More informationUS V. Dico: A Guide To Avoiding CERCLA Arranger Liability?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com US V. Dico: A Guide To Avoiding CERCLA Arranger Liability?
More information6th Circ. Rejects 'Fairyland' FCA Damages Theory
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 6th Circ. Rejects 'Fairyland' FCA Damages Theory Law360,
More informationWill High Court Provide Clarity On 'Clear Evidence'?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Will High Court Provide Clarity On 'Clear
More informationBenefits And Dangers Of An SEC Wells Submission
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Benefits And Dangers Of An SEC Wells Submission
More information: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF DEFENDANT FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL LLC IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S OMNIBUS MOTION
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO GASPAR HERNANDEZ-VEGA Plaintiff, -against- AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al.,
More informationNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION 79 TH Annual Convention & Exhibits
NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION 79 TH Annual Convention & Exhibits Complex Product Liability: The Plaintiff s Perspective of Evaluating and Preparing a Winning Case. LaBarron Boone Kendall C. Dunson Rodney Barganier
More informationPartners Till Death Do Us Part?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Partners Till Death Do Us Part? Law360, New York (October
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/ :28 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY Index Number : 105671/1999 PART STRAUCH, NELSON A. JR. VS A.C. 8 S. INDEX NO. Sequence Number : 001 MOTION DATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SEQ. NO. The
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-879 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States GLORIA GAIL KURNS, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE M. CORSON, DECEASED, ET AL., Petitioners, v. RAILROAD FRICTION PRODUCTS CORPORATION AND VIAD CORP,
More informationDistrict Court of Appeal For the Fourth District State of Florida
E-Copy Received Aug 25, 2014 2:07 PM District Court of Appeal For the Fourth District State of Florida DCA Case No. 4D13-4351 Circuit Court No. 12-25722 CA-27 Crane Co., Defendant-Appellant, v. Richard
More informationTop 10 Food And Drug Product Law Developments For By Anand Agneshwar and Paige Sharpe Arnold & Porter LLP
Published by Appellate Law360, California Law 360, Food & Beverage Law360, Life Sciences Law360, New Jersey Law360, New York Law360, Product Liability Law360, and Public Policy Law360 on January 8, 2016.
More informationChapter 12: Products Liability
Law 580: Torts Thursday, November 19, 2015 November 24, 25 Casebook pages 914-965 Chapter 12: Products Liability Products Liability Prima Facie Case: 1. Injury 2. Seller of products 3. Defect 4. Cause
More informationA Continuing War with Asbestos: The Stalemate Among State Courts on Liability for Take-Home Asbestos Exposure
Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 71 Issue 1 Article 17 Winter 1-1-2014 A Continuing War with Asbestos: The Stalemate Among State Courts on Liability for Take-Home Asbestos Exposure Meghan E. Flinn
More informationStrict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY WARRANTY LAW
Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY The legal liability of manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of goods to consumers, users and bystanders for physical harm or injuries or property
More information5.40B MANUFACTURING DEFECT (Approved 10/1998; Revised 8/2011) Let me give you some applicable concepts which deal with the claim of
CHARGE 5.40B Page 1 of 8 5.40B MANUFACTURING DEFECT (Approved 10/1998; Revised 8/2011) Let me give you some applicable concepts which deal with the claim of manufacturing defect, and then I will explain
More informationPleading Direct Patent Infringement Without Form 18
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Pleading Direct Patent Infringement Without Form 18
More informationBattistoni v AERCO Intl., Inc NY Slip Op 32552(U) December 21, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: Peter H.
Battistoni v AERCO Intl., Inc. 2016 NY Slip Op 32552(U) December 21, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 190103/2015 Judge: Peter H. Moulton Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationTincher and the Reformation of Products Liability Law in Pennsylvania
Tincher and the Reformation of Products Liability Law in Pennsylvania Presented by: Thomas J. Sweeney and Dennis P. Ziemba LEGAL PRIMER: 2016 UPDATE AUGUST 5, 2016 Restatement (Second) of Torts 402a (1965)
More informationMANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY: PRIVITY NOT REQUIRED
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY: PRIVITY NOT REQUIRED Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co., 167 Ohio St. 244, 147 N.E.2d 612 (1958) In her petition plaintiff alleged
More informationBristol-Myers Squibb: A Dangerous Sword
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Bristol-Myers Squibb: A Dangerous Sword By
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-7-2006 In Re: Velocita Corp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1709 Follow this and additional
More informationJudicial Estoppel: Key Defense In Discrimination Suits
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Judicial Estoppel: Key Defense In Discrimination
More informationHow Cos. Can Take Advantage Of DOJ False Claims Act Memo
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How Cos. Can Take Advantage Of DOJ False
More informationNovember The Shirt Off My Back: Using the Relationship Between a Product and a Service to Your Advantage
I suggest the following simple ten ways to avoid malpractice in litigation: q PRODUCT LIABILITY November 2012 IN THIS ISSUE In this newsletter the authors compare two cases in which courts reach different
More informationCase 6:17-cv PGB-DCI Document 284 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 17086
Case 6:17-cv-00417-PGB-DCI Document 284 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 17086 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION SUSAN STEVENSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:17-cv-417-Orl-40DCI
More informationHackshaw v ABB, Inc NY Slip Op 30043(U) January 7, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /13 Judge: Cynthia S.
Hackshaw v ABB, Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 30043(U) January 7, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 190022/13 Judge: Cynthia S. Kern Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op
More informationGOODYEAR LUXEMBOURG TIRES, S.A., GOODYEAR LASTIKLERI T.A.S. AND GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES, FRANCE,
IN THE upr mr ( ourt of GOODYEAR LUXEMBOURG TIRES, S.A., GOODYEAR LASTIKLERI T.A.S. AND GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES, FRANCE, v. Petitioners, EDGAR D. BROWN AND PAMELA BROWN, CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/24/ :59 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 154 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------- --- - - - -- -- -- --- -- --- --- -- X Index No. 190271-2016 DONA FISCHER, as Executrix of the Estate of BENJAMIN FISCHER, Deceased
More informationViewing Class Settlements Through A New Lens: Part 2
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Viewing Class Settlements Through A New Lens:
More informationRecent Case: Sales - Limitation of Remedies - Failure of Essential Purpose [Adams v. J.I. Case Co., 125 Ill. App. 2d 368, 261 N.E.
Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 22 Issue 2 1971 Recent Case: Sales - Limitation of Remedies - Failure of Essential Purpose [Adams v. J.I. Case Co., 125 Ill. App. 2d 368, 261 N.E.2d 1 (1970)] Case
More informationHow To ID Real Parties-In-Interest In Inter Partes Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How To ID Real Parties-In-Interest In Inter Partes
More informationFILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/27/ :50 AM
MONROE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT. Receipt # Book Page Return To: No. Pages: 19 JOSEPH THOMAS KREMER I istmment: MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT Control #: Unrecorded #7461348
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/ :24 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2016 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 190043/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X JOHN D. FIEDERLEIN AND
More informationF I L E D March 13, 2013
Case: 11-60767 Document: 00512172989 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 13, 2013 Lyle
More information