As we say in Virginia, that dog doesn’t hunt. A recent California federal court opinion applied Virginia law to dismiss various product liability claims against a catheter manufacturer. In Boyer v. Abbott Vascular Inc., 2023...more
By: William L. Hallam The American Law Institute, a group of prominent judges, lawyers, and professors, publishes the Restatements of the Law. According to Brooklyn Law School, “The drafting process of the Restatements is...more
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
Tortious interference with business relations involves a third party using false claims against a business in order to drive business away or prevent the business from entering a relationship with another party. The key...more
On March 9, 2021, the Northern District of Illinois ruled in favor of Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) on claims stemming from a house fire that was allegedly caused by defective hoverboards sold by two third-party sellers via...more
Liability for clean-up of hazardous substances pursuant to the Comprehensive Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA," "Act" or "Superfund") can be extremely costly, amounting to hundreds of millions of...more
In September, we addressed the developing caselaw governing an “e-tailer’s” exposure to products liability suits when a consumer purchases a defective product from a third-party vendor on the e-tailer’s sales platform. While...more
Tort reform has ushered in legislation imposing caps on damages in jurisdictions across the country. Unsurprisingly, these statutory caps on damages have faced numerous challenges, leading to a hodgepodge set of rules across...more
In Schueler v. Ad Art, No. 75688-COA, 2020 Nev. App. LEXIS 6, the Court of Appeals of Nevada recently considered whether a custom-made sign constituted a “product” for purposes of the doctrine of strict products liability....more
In Hampton v. Equity Trust Co., an individual sold fraudulent investments to the plaintiff. No. 03-19-00401-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 5674 (Tex. App.—Austin July 23, 2020, no pet.)....more
In July 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to tackle the thorny question of whether Amazon can be held liable for defective products sold by third parties on its website. The Third Circuit offered up the case in June...more
Last week the Third Circuit made its most recent move in the Oberdorf v. Amazon case: asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court whether an e-commerce business – such as Amazon – is strictly liable for a defective product that was...more
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued a tort decision with far-reaching implications for all manufacturers and sellers of products throughout the state. Absent further legislation beyond the 2011 Fair Share Act, liable...more
Yenovkian v. Gulian, 2019 ONSC 7279 is a recent family law decision that is significant beyond the family law context, including in the employment law context. In this decision, Justice Kristjanson of the Ontario Superior...more
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
Being in the Washington, DC Metro area, I hear a lot about politics. On the same day that the Washington Post ran an article about the “impeachment march,” the ritual of taking articles of impeachment from the House to the...more
In Conn. Interlocal Risk Mgmt. Agency v. Jackson, 2019 Conn. LEXIS 230 (Sept. 1, 2019) (Conn. Interlocal), the Supreme Court of Connecticut considered a careless smoking case and whether, as a matter of first impression,...more
In early July, an appeals court ruled that Amazon should be considered a “seller” of goods under Pennsylvania products liability law and subject to strict liability for consumer injuries caused by the defective goods sold on...more
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that online retailers such as Amazon could be held liable for allegedly defective third-party products sold through its website. In a 2-1 panel decision in Oberdorf v. Amazon.com,...more
In CLC Roofing v. Helzer, a roofer purchased shingles from a seller and stored them on the seller’s property. No. 02-17-00229-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 5927 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 11, 2019, no pet. history). ...more
Less than two months apart, two U.S. Courts of Appeal examined the same two issues involving Amazon and came to diametrically opposed conclusions on one of them. The issues were: (a) whether the Communications Decency Act...more
The 3rd Circuit recently held Amazon.com liable for damages for a product sold by a third-party. This is a potentially landmark ruling in the ongoing battle between consumers and online platforms regarding the obligations...more
In my article last month, “Should Amazon be Liable for Products Sold in its Marketplace,” I discussed how the Fourth Circuit, like many courts before it, ruled Amazon was not a “Seller” when considering products sold on its...more
Defective products harm consumers. Courts have consistently held, however, that Amazon is not liable for defective products acquired through its on-line marketplace because the company is not a “seller” and is otherwise...more
In Bombardier Aero. Corp. v. Spep Aircraft Holdings, a plaintiff who had purchased an aircraft sued the defendant for fraud associated with representations regarding whether the aircraft was new or used. No. 17-0578, 2019...more