<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lawyers USA Online &#187; breach of implied warranty</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/tag/breach-of-implied-warranty/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 20:39:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Evidence of prior Ford Windstar fires inadmissible&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/24/evidence-of-prior-ford-windstar-fires-inadmissible/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/24/evidence-of-prior-ford-windstar-fires-inadmissible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:17:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of implied warranty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert witness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful death]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90884</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A product liability plaintiff could not introduce evidence of previous electrical fires in Ford Windstar vans to show that the car manufacturer failed to adequately warn consumers of the hazard, the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiff’s three-year-old daughter suffered fatal burns when an electrical fire <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/24/evidence-of-prior-ford-windstar-fires-inadmissible/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/24/evidence-of-prior-ford-windstar-fires-inadmissible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
