Foreseeability

News & Analysis as of

No Foreseeability Bar to The Application of the Doctrine of Equivalents - Ring & Pinion Service, Inc. v. ARB Corp. LTD.

Addressing the doctrine of equivalents infringement of a means-plus-function limitation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a grant of summary judgment of non-infringement based on an...more

Defending Nonsubscriber Lifting Injuries – Part IX – “Foreseeability”

In addition to proving “but for” (a.k.a., cause-in-fact) causation, the plaintiff must also prove as a separate element of causation that the injury was foreseeable to the defendant. In general, to prove foreseeability, the...more

Hersh v. E-T Enterprises Ltd. and The Elimination of the Open and Obvious Doctrine

On November 12, 2013, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals released its decision in Hersh v. E-T Enterprises, Ltd., et al., No. 12-0106. This landmark decision overturns more than 100 years of West Virginia precedent by...more

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Asbestos “Take-Home” Exposure Case Against Premises Owner Finding No Foreseeability

On September 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an asbestos lawsuit brought against the owner of a shipyard in Puget Sound on the basis that “no reasonable fact finder could conclude that...more

Foreseeable Misuse Isn't A Plaintiff's Panacea

Many consumers misuse products, plain and simple. All the warnings, labels and admonitions in the world won't stop this, try though the manufacturers might to limit their liability for such misuse. Originally Published...more

Florida High Court to Tackle Duty Owed By Person Who Facilitates Attack on Third-Party

On April 23, 2013, the Florida Supreme Court accepted review of a case involving the issue of whether a person in an altercation with another person owes that other person a duty of care when he blocks his means of escape,...more

Premises Liability and Third Party Crimes

Many people are surprised to learn that if you are a victim of a crime committed by a stranger on someone else’s property, the owner of the property can be held liable for failing to provide adequate security. Anna Burgese, a...more

Attacks on Business Properties: Can You File a Premises Liability Lawsuit?

If you have been the victim of an attack on a business property, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries. The statute of limitations for prosecuting the criminal is usually much longer than the statute of...more

Managing Risk: Liability For The Criminal Acts Of Others

There is an ever-present possibility that a land owner may be held liable in damages for the injuries and consequences of criminal acts of strangers. ...more

Maryland Court of Appeals Narrows Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn Worker’s Household about Risks of Asbestos-containing Products

In Georgia Pacific v. Farrar, No. 102, September Term (MD July 8, 2013), the Maryland Court of Appeals reconsidered a manufacturer’s duty to warn members of a worker’s household about the risks of asbestos-containing...more

In Site Spring 2013

Welcome to the Spring edition of In Site. This edition covers the following topics: - A brief overview of the “Jackson cost reforms” to civil litigation which came into force on 1 April 2013 - A note of the...more

Under Construction - March 2013: Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that Contractors May Be Liable for Dangerous Site Conditions...

In Collard v. Vista Paving Corp., the Colorado Court of Appeals adopted the “foreseeability rule” under which a contractor may have a duty of care for dangerous site conditions even after the contractor’s work was completed...more

Under Construction - March 2013

In This Issue: - Letter From the Editor - Tips for Presenting, Analyzing and Resolving Delay and Impact Claims - The Ever-Shrinking Federal Budget: Preparing for Contract Cut-Backs - Colorado Court of...more

Employer not Liable where Safety Hazard Unforeseeable: Ontario Court

An Ontario appeal court has overturned a conviction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act because there was no basis for concluding that the collapse of an overhead duct was a foreseeable risk. The accident could not...more

14 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1