Product Liability Essay

fact on product identification. Courts have consistently held that a brand name drug manufacturer cannot be held liable for injuries caused by a generic form of the drug they produce. In re Darvocet, Darvon, and Propoxyphene Products Liability Litig., 756 F.3d 917, 940 (6th Cir. 2014). However, if plaintiffs claim they took the brand name drug itself, then courts have tended to apply a low standard for product identification. Courts have been reluctant to grant summary judgment on product identification

Strict product liability and negligence. These theories were originally applied under Delaware law in the case, Stark ex re. Jacobsen V. Ford Motor Co. Thus raising the inquiry of how these theories may have varied had the case’s venue been located in Indiana. According to the West’s Indiana Law Encyclopedia, “ In Strict-Liability actions, the plaintiff must prove that (1) the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous, (2) the defective condition existed at the time the product left the

Product Warning Labels and Protection Against Liability Lawsuits We have all purchased a new consumer product with several labels, stickers, and product inserts containing warnings, disclaimers and oversimplified directions. The warnings can actually be humorous at times as illustrated in the following examples: · On Sears hair dryer: Do not use while sleeping · On Marks & Spencer Bread Pudding: Product will be hot after heating. · On Rowenta Iron: Do not iron clothes on body

Happened in 1994, it was a strict product liability tort case between the plaintiff, Stella Liebeck and the defendant, McDonald's. This case became a very famous over the country because the U.S. was discussing over tort reform. “A New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to the plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it at a McDonald's drive-through” (wikipedia.org). On February 27, 1992

Strict Liability Theory Introduction Strict Liability in simplistic terms can imply an individual or company being liable for their deeds, conducts and outcomes that result in damages to others. A personal complaint of injury for a strict liability case is not as a consequence of a foreplanned action or careless deed (Boatright, 2012). The respondent's action should have triggered strict liability and that the complainant suffered harm. In fact, one cannot understand what strict liability in the

Strict Liability Strict Liability The question this week deals with product liability, on the ground of strict liability. Bob was shopping at Carl’s Hardware store. One of Carl’s employee’s named Dan was using a nail gun and it fired without warning. A nail struck Bob in the leg. After checking the nail gun Carl discovers the manufacture, Eagle Tools, Inc., improperly assembled the tool. Bob files a suit against Eagle Tools, Inc, for product liability, on the ground

against Hale, the driver, and Ford because the company failed to test the seat-belt sleeve, even though he did not "seriously pursue the claim against Hale" (Reed, Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Shedd & Morehead, 2012). The case against Ford was based on "two product liability claims: one for not testing the seat belt and the other a design defect claim related to the vehicles tendency to rollover" (Reed, Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Shedd & Morehead, 2012). Branham alleged in his case that "Ford was negligent and strictly liable

industries because of her husband’s death and how he used some equipment manufactured by Hennessy industry. The legal issue raised is between strict liability and how Hennessy industries is not liable because their product was not the defective part of the machinery Barker was using (Melvin, 2011). In addition, Kenneth Abraham explains the evolution of no liability to negligence, and now how these have had an effect on the overall tort law (Abraham, 2012). Therefore, the problem of

raised strict liability claims and negligence claims in regards to asbestos exposure experienced by the decedent

fault. But if the plaintiff, Daniel Boone, somehow broke the compass after the purchase of the car then he could be held responsible for his actions and would therefore have to pay for his medical bills. “ For a seller to be held strictly liable, the product it sells must reach the consumer or user “without substantial change” in its condition (129).” If the company, Corrigan Rulers, can somehow prove that the compass was in perfect condition when delivered to Zoom Car Company they will no longer be