A $10M Defense Win in a Tragic Case
Litigation Daily – February 7, 2018
It’s hard to truly revel in winning at trial when your opponent is a horribly burned child.
Products Liability Litigation
Jury Says Shirt Co. Not Liable In $10M Suit Over Child’s Burns
Law360 – February 5, 2018
A California federal jury has found that Schwab Co. Inc. is not responsible for severe burns sustained by a child while wearing one of its shirts, clearing the clothing manufacturer of all liability after co-defendants Macy’s and Ralph Lauren settled for roughly $860,000.
Nevada Affirms Use Of Consumer-Expectation Test In Design Defect Cases
November 5, 2017 10:52am
The Ford Motor Company (Ford) appealed a jury verdict in a strict liability design defect case, in which Ford unsuccessfully argued an alternative design defect test should have been included in the jury instructions. The plaintiff Teresa Gacia Trejo was driving a 2000 Ford Excursion on a highway with her husband Rafael Trejo sitting in the passenger seat. When Ms. Trejo attempted to change lanes, the trailer she was pulling fishtailed causing her to lose control of the vehicle. The Excursion rolled between 1.5 and 2.5 times before resting upside down. Ms. Trejo stated “the roof was so crushed that [she] was unable to see Rafael.” Ms. Trejo was able to climb out of the vehicle, but her husband died at the scene.
Products Liability: Evidence of Industry Custom & Practice may be Admissible Under Risk-Benefit Analysis
April 18, 2016 10:33pm
In William Jae Kim, et al. v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al. (January 19, 2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1366, a motorist brought action against automobile manufacturer for strict products liability.
Product Liability
August 26, 2014 4:59pm
Product liability cases can involve complex mechanisms of injury, and multiple design and manufacturing defendants. Recently, the Court of Appeal addressed a matter where defendants claimed a products liability case should have been tried under a risk/benefit test instead of a consumer expectations test.
Lead Paint Litigation and the Future of Public Nuisance Law
July 28, 2014 9:52pm
On December 16, 2013, the California Superior Court ordered three current or former paint companies to pay $1.1 billion toward an abatement fund to be used to replace or contain lead paint in millions of California homes. The order was issued pursuant to the Court’s ruling on a lawsuit filed by ten city and county governments in California. The lawsuit, People v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al., alleged the defendant companies’ sale of lead-based paint created a public nuisance and that such companies should pay the plaintiff municipalities for the cost of abating the problem.