News & Analysis as of

Evidence › Manufacturing Defects

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Pennsylvania Stays in a Minority of Two States in Prohibiting Evidence of Compliance With Government and Industry Standards in...

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

Just before Christmas, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court delivered a lump of coal to products liability defendants: Sullivan v. Werner Co., 2023 WL 8859656 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2023), affirming a lower court ruling that barred evidence...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

A Bridge Too Far: Reliance on Malfunction Theory Rejected When the Alleged Failure is a Known Risk of the Product

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

In some circumstances, a plaintiff lacking direct evidence of an identifiable, specific defect may be permitted to use circumstantial evidence to prove that a product malfunctioned and create a triable inference of a product...more

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Expert Declaration in Conjunction with Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient to Defeat Summary Judgment in Vehicle Defect Case

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP on

In Pavoni v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 2015 No. 13-55761 (“Pavoni”), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs’ expert declaration in conjunction with circumstantial evidence of the incident were sufficient to raise...more

Nexsen Pruet, PLLC

The Exclusion of Other Incident Evidence in Product Liability Litigation

Nexsen Pruet, PLLC on

A crucial issue in the successful defense of a product liability case is the exclusion of other incidents and accidents involving products of the manufacturer. In old school parlance, prior incidents were often referred to...more

4 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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide