Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
For over half of a century, Connecticut product liability law has been premised on strict liability. See Garthwait v. Burgio, 153 Conn. 284, 289 (1965) (holding that a manufacturer culpable even when it “has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of [its] product”). Manufacturers are in a better position than the injured party to design their products safely and absorb the cost of injury. The Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Izarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., released early in 2016, reaffirmed this keystone of product liability jurisprudence when the court held that the modified consumer expectation test is the primary test for design defect claims. See Izarelli, 321 Conn. 172, 193 (2016) (setting forth the standards “for a strict product liability action based on defective design generally.”).
*May exclude premium content
By Steven P. Benenson
In the past several years, plaintiffs’ firms have threatened or brought class actions against different companies under New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). Here's what you need to know.
By Mitch Warnock
When you take a catastrophic injury case involving paralysis, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the problems and pitfalls. In this article, the author explores, from personal experience, the different types of future expenses the client can expect to incur.
By Shannon E. McClure and Whitney Mayer
The FDA’s recent approval of 23andMe’s direct-to-consumer genetic test to identify genes associated with 10 common diseases and disorders could result in a widespread expansion of patients armed with individualized health information. This expansion of genetic information in the hands of consumers potentially impacts regulatory and litigation issues for pharmaceutical companies.
Discussion of major rulings out of Texas and California.