About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2017 through April 2018)

handle is hein.ali/resttpl4300 and id is 1 raw text is: TORTS 3D: PRODUCTS LIABILITY Generally S.D.N.Y.2016. Cit. generally in sup., cit. generally in law review articles cit. in ftn. In a multidistrict action brought by Virginia driver against successor corporation to the original manufacturer of her car, this court denied summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff's claims of negligent failure to warn and negligence per se, holding that there was sufficient evidence to impose a post-sale duty-to-warn relationship between plaintiff and defendant for dangerous defects, and granted summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff s failure-to-recall claim. In making its decision, the court discussed the influence of the Restatement Third of Torts: Products Liability, especially with respect to post-sale duty to warn. In re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, 202 F.Supp.3d 362, 366, 367. E.D.Pa.2017. Cit. generally in disc. and in case cit. in disc. In a products-liability action brought by patient and his spouse against manufacturers of a prosthetic nail system, this court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' manufacturing-defect strict-liability claim, finding that such a claim was permissible against a medical-device manufacturer under Restatement Second of Torts § 402A, Comment k. The court relied on Restatement Second of Torts § 402A, noting that Pennsylvania had declined to adopt the formulation of strict-products-liability set forth in the Restatement Third of Torts: Products Liability. Smith v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 251 F.Supp.3d 844, 847. Pa.Super.2017. Cit. generally in disc. Worker whose foot was injured by a wheeled caster attached to the underside of a modular home brought a claim sounding in strict liability against manufacturer of the caster, alleging that the caster was defectively designed because it did not include a toe guard. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for defendant. Affirming, this court held that, if the trial court erred in allowing defendant to present evidence of industry safety standards, federal safety standards, and plaintiff's assumption of risk, any such error was harmless. The court noted that, although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had recently declined to adopt certain principles set forth in the Restatement Third of Torts: Products Liability, it had indicated that it no longer intended to adhere to the strict separation between negligence principles and strict-liability principles espoused by Restatement Second of Torts § 402A, and that a plaintiff could show a design defect through the application of a risk- utility test that was derived from negligence principles. Renninger v. A & R Machine Shop, 163 A.3d 988, 997. CHAPTER 1. LIABILITY OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCT SELLERS BASED ON PRODUCT DEFECTS AT TIME OF SALE TOPIC 1. LIABILITY RULES APPLICABLE TO PRODUCTS GENERALLY § 1. Liability of Commercial Seller or Distributor for Harm Caused by Defective Products For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most