Personal Injury Products Liability Civil Procedure

Read Personal Injury Law updates, news, and legal commentary from leading lawyers and law firms:
News & Analysis as of

Ongoing Reglan Litigation — New Appellate Ruling

Earlier this week, a Missouri appeals court issued an opinion that will hopefully have a significant impact on ongoing litigation against the manufacturers of metoclopramide, the generic version of Reglan. In this latest...more

The Mazda 3 Lock – alleged “shoddy goods” are not always defective

Following a common issues trial solely on questions of liability, Justice Viens of the Quebec Superior Court found that there was no liability with respect to the allegedly defective locking mechanism in Mazda 3 vehicles’...more

The Absolute Pollution Exclusion May Not Be That “Absolute”

The Absolute Pollution Exclusion (“APE”) contained in current general liability insurance policies excludes coverage for costs related to the cleanup of environmental pollution. Insurance companies have taken the position...more

Asbestos Alert: Failure To Recognize A Defendant’s Name Insufficient To Support Summary Judgment

Ganoe v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. - California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (July 21, 2014) - Metalclad was an insulation contractor. Mark Ganoe worked in Department 132 at Goodyear Tire &...more

DePuy Pinnacle Litigation Update

The coordinated litigation over Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implants pending before Judge Kinkeade is also known as MDL No. 2244. The MDL was established in May of 2011. Since then, more than 60 million pages of documents...more

West Virginia Product Liability Law Monograph

Morningstar v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. - In 1979, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals decided Morningstar v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co., the leading case in West Virginia product liability law. 253...more

Outside the Scope? New York Court of Appeals Limits the Disclosure of Medical Reports in Childhood Lead Poisoning Cases

The New York Court of Appeals recently reversed the trial court’s order requiring plaintiffs in lead poisoning cases to produce detailed medical reports chronicling each alleged injury and causally connecting those injuries...more

First Circuit Court of Appeals Refuses to Relax Injury Requirement for Medical Monitoring Claims

In Genereux v. Raytheon Co., No. 13-1921, 2014 WL 2579908 (1st Cir. June 10, 2014), the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment against class action plaintiffs seeking recovery for medical monitoring costs...more

Texas Supreme Court Reaffirms Causation Standard

In Bostic, et. al. v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, 57 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 1091, the Supreme Court of Texas reaffirmed that the “substantial factor” causation test applies in asbestos personal injury cases, defined the quantitative...more

Pennsylvania Statute of Repose Applies to Asbestos Claims

In Graver v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 2014 Pa. Super. 132, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the statute of repose applicable to designers and constructors of improvements to real property applied to asbestos claims....more

Florida High Court to Decide Which Test Governs Component Parts Doctrine

On April 8, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an asbestos case concerning the liability of a defendant who has sold a component part to a manufacturer who then incorporates the part into its own...more

Texas Supreme Court Enforces Medical Criteria for Claims Involving Asbestos and Declares the Application of Chapter 90...

In a 5–4 opinion issued in Union Carbide Corporation v. Daisy E. Synatzske et al. No. 12-0617 (Tex. July 3, 2014), the Texas Supreme Court held that Chapter 90 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code as applied to the...more

Product Liability Update - July 2014

In This Issue: - Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Foreign Manufacturer Which Pled Meritorious Personal Jurisdiction Defense in Answer, But Did Not Move to Dismiss, Forfeited Defense By Participating in...more

California Supreme Court Considers Component Parts Doctrine

Last week, the California Supreme Court granted review of Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties, Inc. to resolve a split in the Second Appellate District regarding the application of California’s component parts doctrine. The...more

No Coverage Under Aviation Policies Where Product Was Not Used in Connection With Aircraft or Aviation Operations

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division - A New Jersey appellate court affirmed an order granting summary judgment, stating that the insurer owed no duty to defend or indemnify its insured in a personal injury...more

Federal Court Holds Manufacturer of Investigational Drug and Medical Device Responsible for Clinical Trial Investigator’s...

In a recent decision subject to multiple flaws, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts refused to dismiss a suit against the manufacturer of an investigational drug and medical device used in a...more

Texas Supreme Court: “Dose Matters” In Mesothelioma Cases Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., No. 10-0775

Yesterday, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed the substantial-factor standard of causation recognized in Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, and held that it applies in mesothelioma cases. The Court made clear that in...more

Mississippi High Court Vacates Widow’s $1.1 Million Silica Sand Verdict for Insufficient Evidence

The Mississippi Supreme Court recently reversed a $1.1 million jury verdict of a widow of a former railroad worker. In Mississippi Valley Silica Company, Inc. v. Reeves, (Supreme Court of Mississippi, No. 2012-CA-01702-SCT,...more

U.S. Court of Appeals Dismisses Almost All Claims of Ecuadorian Provinces and Individual Plaintiffs Against DynCorp

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently affirmed the dismissal of all but three claims brought by individual and government entity plaintiffs against defendant DynCorp based on claims of injury by an...more

CA Appellate Courts: Secondary Exposure Claims Permitted Against Product Manufacturers, But Not Premises Owners

Two California Courts of Appeal recently decided cases that will significantly impact secondary asbestos exposure claims in California. The result is that premises owners have no duty to protect family members of workers on...more

Round Three: California Appellate Courts Home in on Duty of Care in Household Asbestos Exposure

On June 3, 2014, Wilson Elser issued a Client Alert on the decision in Johnny Blaine Kesner Jr. v. Superior Court of Alameda County (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 251, in which the First District Court of Appeal held that an employer...more

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reverses Forum Non Conveniens Dismissal of International Air Crash Case, But Don’t Equate Pennsylvania...

United States courts facing forum non conveniens (FNC) motions, at least with respect to lawsuits arising out of air crashes that occur outside of the United States, seem to fall into two distinct camps: Cook County,...more

New Jersey Rejects Liability for Third-Party Manufactured Replacement Parts Based on Lack of Causation Evidence

In Hughes v. A.W. Chesterton Co., the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed a trial court’s granting of Goulds Pumps’ motion for summary judgment to a set of consolidated asbestos personal injury...more

Federal Officer Jurisdiction Is Alive and Well: Ninth Circuit Affirms Jurisdiction for Navy Equipment Manufacturer

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' recent opinion in Leite v. Crane Co., 2014 WL 1646924 (9th Cir. April 25, 2014), affirmed a decision by the Hawaii Federal District Court denying a motion to remand after finding that a...more

Mixing Machine Defendants May Be Liable for Injuries Caused by Toxins Released During Mixing Process

In Olivares et al. v. Morehouse-Cowles et. al., (April 21, 2014, B245407) [2014 WL1571766], the California Court of Appeal recently held that several mixing machine manufacturers could be sued for injuries allegedly caused by...more

294 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 12

Follow Personal Injury Updates on: