News & Analysis as of

Duty to Warn Product Defects

McGlinchey Stafford

Maritime Products Liability Law: Understanding the Fundamentals

McGlinchey Stafford on

The United States Supreme Court first recognized products liability, including strict liability, as part of the general maritime law in East River Steamship S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (1986). The...more

Marshall Dennehey

Federal District Court Recognizes Important Limitations on “Post-Sale Duty to Warn”

Marshall Dennehey on

Liebig v. MTD Products, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:22-cv-04427, 2023 WL 5517557 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2023) - A product may be defective if it is sold without adequate warnings. But what if a manufacturer learns new safety...more

Goldberg Segalla

New Jersey Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Division and Reinstates Plaintiff’s Verdict

Goldberg Segalla on

New Jersey Supreme Court, June 30, 2022 - In this asbestos action, decedent Willis Edenfield (“Edenfield”) commenced a failure to warn product liability action against defendant Union Carbide. The Appellate Division...more

Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP

Product Liability 2021 Year in Review

Massachusetts federal and state courts issued several important product liability decisions in 2021. Nutter’s Product Liability practice group reviewed these cases and report on their significant holdings as follows...more

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard,...

Products Liability Series: Does Arkansas Law Recognize a Post-Sale Duty to Warn? (Part II)

Last week we wrote about the status of Arkansas’ law recognizing a post-sale duty to warn, ultimately concluding that Arkansas Courts have not recognized the existence of any such duty. This week we will explain how, despite...more

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard,...

Products Liability Series: Does Arkansas Law Recognize a Post-Sale Duty to Warn?

Does Arkansas law recognize a post-sale duty to warn? In a nutshell, no. While Arkansas state courts have not expressly considered the issue, all legal authority indicates that the answer is indeed “no.” To support this...more

Foley Hoag LLP

Product Liability Update: July 2019

Foley Hoag LLP on

Massachusetts Federal Court Dismisses Suit By Japanese Plaintiffs Against Massachusetts Reactor Designer For Japanese Disaster Based On Forum Non Conveniens, Citing Japanese Compensation System That Provided Alternative Forum...more

Nilan Johnson Lewis PA

Manufacturers Take Note: Three Significant Product Liability Cases from Minnesota

Nilan Johnson Lewis PA on

Product liability issues are mainly grounded in seldom-changing legal doctrines. However, manufacturers everywhere need to be aware of three relatively recent court rulings should they find themselves facing litigation in...more

Knobbe Martens

Medical Device Manufacturers’ Duty to Warn Expands

Knobbe Martens on

The Washington State Supreme Court recently released its decision in Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. where it held that Washington law requires medical device manufacturers to warn hospitals that purchase their products of...more

Butler Snow LLP

Pro Te: Solutio - Vol. 8 No. 5

Butler Snow LLP on

The Spring 2016 issue of Pro Te Solutio deals head-on with issues that are driving litigation in this modern era. And as it is with many issues, there are two sides to every story. The first topic we wrangle involves the...more

10 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide