Long-time smokers could not sue Philip Morris for manufacturing cigarettes that allegedly contained unnecessarily dangerous levels of carcinogens, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming a dismissal.
A wrongful death plaintiff failed to state a “plausible” claim that the makers of the antipsychotic drug ABILIFY were liable for her son’s suicide, the D.C. Circuit has ruled in affirming a dismissal.
Medical device makers could not be held strictly liable for an alleged design defect in a surgically implanted prosthetic device, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in affirming a summary judgment.
A social host may be a “harborer” subject to strict liability for injuries caused by a guest’s dog, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.
A food producer may be strictly liable for an esophageal injury suffered by a man who claimed there was bone in the “boneless” turkey product he consumed, Maine’s highest court has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.
You always expect some glitches when your office upgrades its computer software, but when customer records go up in smoke, that’s a real nightmare. For one particularly unlucky dental office, the trouble was compounded by a limitation of liability clause in its software contract.
Last week, the Utah Supreme Court had to decide whether state product liability law prevents a software seller from enforcing such a clause.
Adding insult to injury, California courts have decided that Annie’s owners aren’t liable for the motorcyclist’s busted shoulder and property loss.
A federal judge on Monday gave the go ahead to a product liability lawsuit filed by a California woman who claimed she suffered injuries from a mass of toxic mold growing in her Sleep Number mattress.
A class claims seeking damages for alleged defects in Owens Corning roofing shingles were not discharged by the company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, the 3rd Circuit has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.
The manufacturer of a brake grinding machine can be sued for asbestos exposure suffered by equipment operators, even though other manufacturers’ products were the source of the asbestos, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in reversing a dismissal.