polarsign

Understanding Strict Products Liability. ORIGINS AND PURPOSE OF A PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIM. In McPherson v. Buick Motor Co.,2 rationalized that when a. American Cyanamid Co: Date. K is to protect from strict liability products that cannot be. The Blue Island yard just south of Chicago.

By Law360, New York (June 24, 2016, 1:52 PM EDT) -- The first bellwether trial in the General Motors ignition switch litigation came to an unusual end, a Texas jury meted out an attention-grabbing $$497.6 million verdict to patients who claimed injuries from hip implants made by Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. Unit, and Coca-Cola prevailed against Pom Wonderful’s claims that it stole business by fooling consumers about the content of its juice. Torrent Winx Dvd Ripper Platinum there. Here, Law360 recaps the year's most significant product liability cases so far. Acer Power St Driver. GM Speeds Through Ignition Switch Bellwether Trials The first bellwether trial.

In the final installment of his in-depth analysis of case evaluation and trial strategy, Johnson & Bell Shareholder, Charles P. Rantis, focuses on the sole proximate cause argument in product liability cases – withdrawing all affirmative defenses and trying the case on damages alone. (Read and ) Trial Strategy: Withdrawal of Affirmative Defenses and Focus on Sole Proximate Cause Irrespective of whether the plaintiff’s conduct is characterized as assumption of the risk of injury or unforeseeable misuse or even contributory negligence, the defendant manufacturer may assert that the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff’s accident was the plaintiff’s own conduct or the plaintiff’s employer’s conduct. Plaintiff’s conduct or plaintiff’s employer’s conduct as sole proximate cause of accident The conduct of the plaintiff is relevant to the issue of proximate cause in a product liability action based on either strict liability in tort or negligence. In the case of Korando v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 159 Ill.2d 335, 637 N.E.2d 1020 (1994), the plaintiff’s decedents were killed in a one-car motor vehicle accident after the tread and top belt of the right rear steel belted radial tire separated from the belt.

The decedents’ automobile skidded and went off the roadway, where it collided with a tree, vaulted into the air and landed upside down in a creek. The plaintiff’s decedents died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The sole theory of recovery was based on strict liability in tort. The defendant manufacturer denied the plaintiff’s allegations and raised three (3) affirmative defenses: misuse, assumption of the risk of injury and contributory negligence. Subsequently, the defendant tire manufacturer withdrew its affirmative defenses. As such, these defenses were not presented to the jury for consideration. However, the tire manufacturer through expert testimony presented evidence of the driver’s speed, braking and steering as the proximate cause of the accident.