DOCSLIB.ORG

The Ten Myths of Product Liability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

William Mitchell Law Review Volume 27 | Issue 1 Article 17 2000 The eT n Myths of Product Liability Kevin Reynolds Richard J. Kirschman Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Reynolds, Kevin and Kirschman, Richard J. (2000) "The eT n Myths of Product Liability ," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 27: Iss. 1, Article 17. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol27/iss1/17 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Reynolds and Kirschman: The Ten Myths of Product Liability THE TEN MYTHS OF PRODUCT LIABILITY Kevin Reynoldst RichardJ. Kirschmant Both dreams and myths are important communicationsfrom ourselves to ourselves. If we do not understand the language in which they are writ- ten, we miss a great deal of what we know and tell ourselves in those hours when we are not busy manipulatingthe outside world.' I. INTRO DUCTIO N ...................................................................... 552 II. MYTH NO. 1: YOU CAN RECOVER BASED ON STRICT LI- ABILITY IN TORT AND IMPLIED WARRANTY FOR THE SAME D EFECT ...................................................................................553 A. Implied Warranty, Strict Liability And Negligence Claims Are Governed By The Same Statute Of Limitations............. 553 B. WarrantyDisclaimers Are Ineffective Or Void In Personal Injury Cases ................................................................ 555 C. An Implied Warranty Theory Can Be Pursued With Strict Liability Or Negligence Claims As An Alternative Ground Of L iability.................................................................. 557 III. MYTH NO. 2: DESIGN DEFECT CAN BE BASED ON STRICT LIABILITY IN TO RT .................................................................. 558 IV. MYTH No. 3: FAILURE To WARN CAN BE BASED ON STRICT LIABILITY ON TORT .................................................... 563 V. MYrH No. 4: STRICT LIABILITY APPLIES EVEN IF THE PRODUCT HAS BEEN ALTERED, So LONG As THE ALTERA- TION WAS FORESEEABLE ......................................................... 564 t Kevin M. Reynolds and Richard J. Kirschman are members in the Des Moines law firm of Whitfield & Eddy, PLC. Mr. Reynolds received a B.S. in Politi- cal Science from Iowa State University in 1978 and graduated from the University of Iowa Law School in 1981. tt Mr. Kirschman obtained a B.S. in Political Science from Northeast Mis- souri State University in 1988 and graduated from the University of Iowa Law School in 1991. Both are active members of the Product Liability Committees of the Defense Research Institute and the Iowa Defense Counsel Association. 1. Dr. Erich Fromm, NY TIMES, Jan. 5, 1964. Published by Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2000 1 WilliamWILLIAM Mitchell Law MITCHELL Review, Vol. 27, LA Iss. W 1 REVIEW [2000], Art. 17 [Vol. 27:1 VI. MYTH No. 5: A PRODUCT MANUFACTURER'S DUTIES ARE FIXED AT TIME O F SALE ......................................................... 566 A. A ManufacturerHas A Legal Duty To Recall Or Retrofit A P roduct.................................................................... 567 B. A Manufacturer's "ContinuingDuty To Warn" Is Lim- ited To The Duty To Exercise Reasonable Care................... 568 VII. MYTH NO. 6: OTHER ACCIDENTS, CLAIMS OR LAWSUITS ARE ADMISSIBLE IN A PRODUCT LIABILITY CASE ................... 570 VIII. MYTH No. 7: SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES ARE ADMISSIBLE IN A PRODUCT LIABILITY CASE ........................... 572 IX. MYTH No. 8: THERE IS A DUTY To 'REMIND' USERS OR CONSUMERS OF KNOWN, UNDERSTOOD OR OBVIOUS PRODUCT DANGERS ................................................................ 575 X. MYTH No. 9: IN A FAILURE TO WARN CASE, THERE IS A PLAINTIFF'S HEEDING PRESUMPTION AND CAUSATION DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PROVEN ........................................... 577 XI. MYrH No. 10: THE FAILURE To USE A SEAT BELT IS IN- ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, EVEN IN A CRASHWORTHINESS C ASE ....................................................................................... 5 78 X II. C O NCLUSIO N .......................................................................... 582 I. INTRODUCTION Product liability is one of the most widely misunderstood and complicated areas of the law. With the emergence of strict liability claims and their subsequent national acceptance, many believe that product manufacturers are responsible, similar to insurers, for any and all injuries resulting from product-related accidents. While a product manufacturer's responsibility is heightened and the rea- sonableness of its conduct is closely examined whenever a serious injury has occurred, liability is not strict in the absolute sense of the word. Armed with a proper understanding of substantive product liability law, the idiosyncrasies of the law in a particular jurisdiction and the intricacies of individual types of claims, which encompass strict liability, negligence and warranty, a product seller has nu- merous defenses in its arsenal. The purpose of this article is to identify the primary myths surrounding product liability law and enable counsel to spot issues that are crucial in the proper han- dling of a product liability case. http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol27/iss1/17 2 2000] THEReynolds TEN and MYTHS Kirschman: OF The PROD Ten MythsUCT LIABILITYof Product Liability II. MYTH No. 1: YOU CAN RECOVER BASED ON STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT AND IMPLIED WARRANTY FOR THE SAME DEFECT Strict liability was a theory of recovery initially developed, at least in part, to permit injured users or consumers to avoid the rig- ors of the privity requirement attendant to warranty claims.' Prior to the recognition of strict liability in tort, a party who was injured by a product could be denied recovery if he or she was not in priv- ity with the product seller or manufacturer.! The subsequent ad- vent of comparative fault in a majority ofjurisdictions has, however, blurred any meaningful distinctions between negligence, strict li- ability and warranty law. In many jurisdictions all theories of liabil- ity, regardless of their formal label, are considered fault4 The new Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability also recognizes that there is little, if any, distinction between the three product liability theories.5 Although warranty theories may be provide a basis for imposing liability in a product liability case, warranty claims are typically redundant of other available and existing claims. As a re- sult of this overlap, three potential misconceptions should be care- fully examined. A. Implied Warranty, Strict Liability And Negligence Claims Are Governed By The Same Statute Of Limitations Implied warranty claims can be subject to special statutes of limitation based on the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter "UCC"), for example, a four-year limitations period.6 Most impor- 2. Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., Inc., 377 P.2d 897, 899-901 (Cal. 1962); Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 150 P.2d 436, 438-40 (Cal 1944). See generally Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 161 A.2d 69 (NJ. 1960); MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916). 3. See generally Greenman, 377 P.2d 897; Henningsen, 161 A.2d at 80-84, 99-101 (discussing the early common law concepts of privity and then holding that in cer- tain cases the privity requirement is not applicable). 4. See, e.g., IOWA CODE § 668.1 (1) (1999); Uniform Comparative Fault Act, §1(b) (1977). 5. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OFTORTS: PRODUCTS LIABILITY § 2 cmt. n (1998). 6. U.C.C., § 2-725; Fell v. Kewanee Farm Equip. Co., 457 N.W.2d 911, 919 (Iowa 1990) (applying five-year statute of limitations to implied warranty actions in Iowa); Carlisle v. Fetzer, 381 N.W.2d 627, 628-29 (Iowa 1986) (applying five-year statute of limitations to implied warranty actions in Iowa). Most jurisdictions rec- ognize two theories of implied warranty liability: 1) implied warranty of merchant- ability; and 2) implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. U.C.C. §§ 2- 314 & 2-315; IOWA CODE at §§ 554.2314 (1999) (defining implied warranty of mer- chantability) & 554.2315 (defining implied warranty of fitness for a particular Published by Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2000 3 WilliamWILLIAM Mitchell Law MITCHELL Review, Vol. 27, LA Iss. W 1 REVIEW [2000], Art. 17 [Vol. 27:1 tantly, the limitations period commences at the time tender of deliv- ery is made, i.e., at time of initial retail sale of the product. "A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the ag- grieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made."7 These statutory provisions may govern product liability claims for personal injuries which are premised upon an alleged breach of warranty. 8 Similar in opera- tion and effect to a statute of repose, these statutes strictly circum- scribe warranty liability on older products. It is a common mistake to assume that the general statute of limitations for personal injury claims (for example, two or three years from the date of the accident) applies to a products case grounded on breach of warranty. In many jurisdictions, warranty claims are governed by a distinct limitations period. 9 The UCC statute of limitations for implied warranty
Recommended publications
  • Attention Food & Beverage Industry: False Advertising, Product Liability, and Defamation Litigation Is Making an Impact

    Attention Food & Beverage Industry: False Advertising, Product Liability, and Defamation Litigation Is Making an Impact

    Attention Food & Beverage Industry: False Advertising, Product Liability, and Defamation Litigation is Making an Impact Presented by: Erik Connolly, Amanda Groves, Neil Murphy, and Ron Rothstein Today’s eLunch Presenters Erik Connolly Amanda Groves Neil Murphy Ron Rothstein Partner Partner Partner Partner Chicago Charlotte/San Francisco Chicago Chicago [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] +1 (312) 558-6339 +1 (704) 350-7755 +1 (312) 558-7538 +1 (312) 558-7464 2 Overview 1. The Broadening Scope of Labeling and Safety Issue Targeted by the Plaintiffs’ Bar 2. Got HFCS? A Report from the Front Lines of Product Liability and False Advertising Litigation Involving High Fructose Corn Syrup 3. Food Defamation: Protecting Your Brand 3 The Broadening Scope of Labeling and Safety Issues Targeted by the Plaintiffs’ Bar Presented by: Amanda Groves Ron Rothstein 4 Overview • What’s under attack in consumer class actions? • Pet Food – Propylene Glycol • Homeopathic Medicines • Health Claims – Kind Bar • Chocolate – Antioxidants • Slack Fill 5 Where Do These Lawsuits Come From? Hire FDA State Consultant - FDA Warning Investigative FTC Consent NAD Rulings Attorneys Find Technical Journalism Judgments Letters Violation of General Regulations or Invent Theory Lawsuits 6 Who is Behind the Litigation? Law Offices of Law Offices of Janet Howard W. Lindner Spielberg Rubinstein, P.A. Reese Richman LLP Braun Law Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. 7 Who is Behind the Litigation? • Many of the
  • Products Liability: User Misconduct Defenses David G

    Products Liability: User Misconduct Defenses David G

    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Faculty Publications Law School Fall 2000 Products Liability: User Misconduct Defenses David G. Owen University of South Carolina - Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/law_facpub Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation David G. Owen, Products Liability: User Misconduct Defenses, 52 S.C.L.Rev. 1 (2000). This Article is brought to you by the Law School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRODUCTS LIABILITY: USER MISCONDUCT DEFENSES DAVID G. OwEN* I. TRADITIONAL USER MISCONDUCT DEFENSES: AN OVERVIEW ....... 3 A. Common Law ......................................... 3 B. Reform Legislation ..................................... 5 II. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ................................ 9 A. In General ........................................... 9 B. Warnings Cases ...................................... 15 C. Children ............................................ 15 D. Employees ........................................... 16 E. ContributoryNegligence as a Defense to Strict Liability in Tort Claims ........................................ 17 F. Contributory Negligence as the Sole Proximate Cause of an Accident ........................................ 21 III. ASSUMPTION OF RISK ..................................... 23 A. In General .......................................... 23 B.
  • An Introduction to Product Liability Law

    An Introduction to Product Liability Law

    AN INTRODUCTION TO PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW When a person is injured by a defective product that is unreasonably dangerous or unsafe, the injured person may have a claim or cause of action against the company that designed, manufactured, sold, distributed, leased, or furnished the product. In other words, the company may be liable to the person for his injuries and, as a result, may be required to pay for his damages. That, in short, is product liability; and, not surprisingly, the law that governs this kind of liability is referred to as product liability law. This article is intended to serve as a brief introduction to product liability law, especially as it relates to food. However, before we embark on our introductory tour of this subject, a few words of warning are necessary. First, you should keep in mind that whole books have been written about product liability law and that this article is, by necessity, an oversimplification of a complex subject. Second, for every general rule described below, you should assume that there exists innumerable exceptions. That is the way the law is, and, if it were otherwise, there would be a lot of lawyers out of work. Finally, you should remember that, as a rule, the law is different from state to state, and product liability law is no exception to this rule. A BRIEF HISTORY OF STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW AN INJURY WITH NO REMEDY AT LAW It is exceedingly rare, in the law, when one can point to a general rule that is both well established and uniformly followed.
  • © Gibbel Kraybill & Hess LLP 2015

    © Gibbel Kraybill & Hess LLP 2015

    © Gibbel Kraybill & Hess LLP 2015 Everence Stewardship University Session A3 J. Doe v. Church Presented by GKH Attorney Peter J. Kraybill March 7, 2015 © Gibbel Kraybill & Hess LLP 2015 J. Doe v. Church Churches are not as “special” to outsiders, whether those outsiders are • cyber squatters • copyright holders • banks or • slip-and-fall victims Churches often will be treated as equal to businesses or other “legal entities” for purposes of • contract law • trademarks • copyrights and • negligence, among others. How can churches be protective and proactive when engaging with the world? Legal Threats State action versus Private action (government enforcement compared to civil litigation) State Action What about the government going after a church? US Constitution - Bill of Rights - First Amendment - Freedom of Religion - "Free exercise” clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause Free Exercise Clause The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The clause protects not just those beliefs but actions taken for those beliefs. Specifically, this allows religious exemption from at least some generally applicable laws, i.e. violation of laws is permitted, as long as that violation was for religious reasons. In 1940, the Supreme Court held in Cantwell v. Connecticut that, due to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause is enforceable against state and local governments. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause Extra credit: Famous example of the Amish using the Free Exercise Clause? Wisconsin v.
  • The Slip and Fall of the California Legislature in the Classification of Personal Injury Damages at Divorce and Death

    The Slip and Fall of the California Legislature in the Classification of Personal Injury Damages at Divorce and Death

    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons Publications Faculty Scholarship Summer 2009 The liS p and Fall of the California Legislature in the Classification of Personal Injury Damages At Divorce and Death Helen Y. Chang Golden Gate University - San Francisco, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/pubs Part of the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation 1 Estate Plan. & Comm. Prop. L. J. 345 (2009). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SLIP AND FALL OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES AT DIVORCE AND DEATH by Helen Y. Chang* I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 345 II. CALIFORNIA'S HISTORICAL TREATMENT OF PERSONAL INJURY D AM AGES .......................................................................................... 347 A. No-Fault Divorce and the Principleof Equality ...................... 351 B. Problems with the CurrentCalifornia Law .............................. 354 1. The Cause ofAction 'Arises'PerFamily Code Section 2 603 ...................................................................................355 2. Division of PersonalInjury Damages at Divorce.............. 358 3. The Classification of PersonalInjury Damages
  • Tort Liability That May Attach to Intellectual Property Licensing, 13 J

    Tort Liability That May Attach to Intellectual Property Licensing, 13 J

    UIC Law Review Volume 13 Issue 1 Article 4 Fall 1979 Tort Liability That May Attach to Intellectual Property Licensing, 13 J. Marshall L. Rev. 105 (1979) W. R. Norris Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation W.R. Norris, Tort Liability That May Attach to Intellectual Property Licensing, 13 J. Marshall L. Rev. 105 (1979) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol13/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TORT LIABILITY THAT MAY ATTACH TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSING W. R. NORRIS* INTRODUCTION Due to the wide applicability of the functions of tort law, there has emerged an interface between the field of intellectual property licensing and tort law which by definition applies to le- gal responsibilities outside the scope of the licensing contract. However, there appears to be a dearth of case law and compan- ion writings on tort liability in the fields of know-how and patent licensing even though tort liability has become well established in the field of trademark licensing over the past few years. The reasons for the development of this dichotomy are not clear. Between the licensor and licensee of technology and/or patents, one can speculate that the agreement has generally been sufficient in outlining performances and remedies required by the parties, even though some theories support extracontrac- tual remedies in tort.' Lacking privity with the technology licen- sor, a third party customer of the licensee is likely to target his recourse against the licensee-manufacturer.
  • Slip and Fall.Pdf

    Slip and Fall.Pdf

    Garden State CLE 21 Winthrop Road • Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 [email protected] Video Course Evaluation Form Attorney Name____________________________________ Atty ID number for Pennsylvania:______________________ Name of Course You Just Watched_____________________ ! ! Please Circle the Appropriate Answer !Instructors: Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent !Materials: Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent CLE Rating: Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent ! Required: When you hear the bell sound, write down the secret word that appears on your screen on this form. ! Word #1 was: _____________ Word #2 was: __________________ ! Word #3 was: _____________ Word #4 was: __________________ ! What did you like most about the seminar? ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ! What criticisms, if any, do you have? ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ! I Certify that I watched, in its entirety, the above-listed CLE Course Signature ___________________________________ Date ________ Garden State CLE, 21 Winthrop Rd., Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 – 609-895-0046 – fax 609-895-1899 GARDEN STATE CLE LESSON PLAN A 1.0 credit course FREE DOWNLOAD LESSON PLAN AND EVALUATION WATCH OUT: REPRESENTING A SLIP AND FALL CLIENT Featuring Robert Ramsey Garden State CLE Senior Instructor And Robert W. Rubinstein Certified Civil Trial Attorney Program
  • Product Liability and Protection of EU Consumers: Is It Time for a Serious Reassessment?

    Product Liability and Protection of EU Consumers: Is It Time for a Serious Reassessment?

    Journal of Private International Law ISSN: 1744-1048 (Print) 1757-8418 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpil20 Product liability and protection of EU consumers: is it time for a serious reassessment? Giorgio Risso To cite this article: Giorgio Risso (2019) Product liability and protection of EU consumers: is it time for a serious reassessment?, Journal of Private International Law, 15:1, 210-233, DOI: 10.1080/17441048.2019.1579994 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2019.1579994 Published online: 06 Jun 2019. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpil20 Journal of Private International Law, 2019 Vol. 15, No. 1, 210–233, https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2019.1579994 Product liability and protection of EU consumers: is it time for a serious reassessment? Giorgio Risso* The European Union (EU) has not enacted a coherent and fully-fledged product liability regime. At the substantive level, the Product Liability Directive – adopted in 1985 – is the only piece of legislation harmonising the laws of the Member States. At the private international law level, the special choice-of-laws provision in the Rome II Regulation coexists with the general rules in the Brussels I-bis Regulation. Cross-border product liability cases are therefore subject to different pieces of legislation containing either “general” or “specific” provisions. In turn, such general and specific provisions do have their own rationales which, simplistically, can be inspired by “pro-consumer”, “pro-producer”, or more “balanced” considerations, or can be completely “indifferent” to consumer protection.
  • Chapter 7 Tort Law and Product Liability Chapter Outline 1

    Chapter 7 Tort Law and Product Liability Chapter Outline 1

    Chapter 7 Tort Law and Product Liability Chapter Outline 1. Introduction 2. The Basis of Tort Law 3. Intentional Torts 4. Negligence 5. Cyber Torts: Defamation Online 6. Strict Liability 7. Product Liability 8. Defenses to Product Liability 9. Tort Law and the Paralegal Chapter Objectives After completing this chapter, you will know: • What a tort is, the purpose of tort law, and the three basic categories of torts. • The four elements of negligence. • What is meant by strict liability and under what circumstances strict liability is applied. • The meaning of strict product liability and the underlying policy for imposing strict product liability. • What defenses can be raised in product liability actions. Chapter 7 Tort Law and Product Liability Chapter Outline I. INTRODUCTION A. Torts are wrongful actions. B. The word tort is French for “wrong.” II. THE BASIS OF TORT LAW A. Two notions serve as the basis of all torts. i. Wrongs ii. Compensation B. In a tort action, one person or group brings a personal-injury suit against another person or group to obtain compensation or other relief for the harm suffered. C. Tort suits involve “private” wrongs, distinguishable from criminal actions that involve “public” wrongs. D. The purpose of tort law is to provide remedies for the invasion of various interests. E. There are three broad classifications of torts. i. Intentional Torts ii. Negligence iii. Strict Liability F. The classification of a particular tort depends largely on how the tort occurs (intentionally or unintentionally) and the surrounding circumstances. Intentional Intentions An intentional tort requires only that the tortfeasor, the actor/wrongdoer, intended, or knew with substantial certainty, that certain consequences would result from the action.
  • SCC File No. 39108 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL from the COURT of APPEAL for BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: CITY OF

    SCC File No. 39108 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL from the COURT of APPEAL for BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: CITY OF

    SCC File No. 39108 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: CITY OF NELSON APPLICANT (Respondent) AND: TARYN JOY MARCHI RESPONDENT (Appellant) ______________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OF ARUMENT OF THE RESPONDENT (Pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) ______________________________________________ DAROUX LAW CORPORATION MICHAEL J. SOBKIN 1590 Bay Avenue 33 Somerset Street West Trail, B.C. V1R 4B3 Ottawa, ON K2P 0J8 Tel: (250) 368-8233 Tel: (613) 282-1712 Fax: (800) 218-3140 Fax: (613) 288-2896 Danielle K. Daroux Michael J. Sobkin Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Taryn Joy Marchi Agent for Counsel for the Respondent MURPHY BATTISTA LLP #2020 - 650 West Georgia Street Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4N7 Tel: (604) 683-9621 Fax: (604) 683-5084 Joseph E. Murphy, Q.C. Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Taryn Joy Marchi ALLEN / MCMILLAN LITIGATION COUNSEL #1550 – 1185 West Georgia Street Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4E6 Tel: (604) 569-2652 Fax: (604) 628-3832 Greg J. Allen Tele: (604) 282-3982 / Email: [email protected] Liam Babbitt Tel: (604) 282-3988 / Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Applicant, City of Nelson 1 PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Overview 1. The applicant City of Nelson (“City”) submits that leave should be granted because there is lingering confusion as to the difference between policy and operational decisions in cases of public authority liability in tort. It cites four decisions in support of this proposition. None of those cases demonstrate any confusion on the part of the lower courts.
  • Investigating and Defending Products Liability and Toxic Tort Claims

    Investigating and Defending Products Liability and Toxic Tort Claims

    INVESTIGATING AND DEFENDING PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND TOXIC TORT CLAIMS Presented at the Twin Cities Claims Association Winter Seminar December 4, 2006 Lawrence M. Rocheford [email protected] 8519 Eagle Point Boulevard, Suite 100 Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042-8624 (651) 290-6500 Copyright © 2006 by Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, P.L.L.P. INDEX _______________________________________________________________________________ I. COMMON PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIMS.................................................................1 A. Negligence Claims.........................................................................................................1 1. Design.................................................................................................................2 2. Manufacture .....................................................................................................5 3. Entrustment ......................................................................................................7 4. Bailments...........................................................................................................8 B. Strict Liability Claims..................................................................................................9 1. Defective Design .............................................................................................10 2. Defective Manufacture ..................................................................................13 3. Entrustment ....................................................................................................14
  • When the Bough Breaks: a Proposal for Georgia Slip and Fall Law After Alterman Foods, Inc. V. Ligon Daniel W

    When the Bough Breaks: a Proposal for Georgia Slip and Fall Law After Alterman Foods, Inc. V. Ligon Daniel W

    Urban Law Annual ; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law Volume 55 January 1999 When the Bough Breaks: A Proposal for Georgia Slip and Fall Law After Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon Daniel W. Champney Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_urbanlaw Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel W. Champney, When the Bough Breaks: A Proposal for Georgia Slip and Fall Law After Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon, 55 Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 073 (1999) Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_urbanlaw/vol55/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Urban Law Annual ; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHEN THE BOUGH BREAKS: A PROPOSAL FOR GEORGIA SLIP AND FALL LAW AFTER ALTERMAN FOODS, INC. V LIGON INTRODUCTION Before the Georgia Supreme Court's recent decision in Robinson v. Kroger Co.' ("Robinson"), the authors of a yearly survey of Georgia tort law succinctly described the status of the subset of commercial premises liability law known as slip-and-fal 2 cases by stating: "Something is fundamentally wrong with the appellate standard of review for slip and fall cases in Georgia.",3 The problems 1. 493 S.E.2d 403 (Ga. 1997) (reexamining Georgia's slip-and-fall law for the first time since Barentine v. Kroger Co., 443 S.E.2d 485 (Ga.