Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Editor’s Note: Last month, the authors noted with dismay the fact that the Connecticut Supreme Court is currently considering whether the state should abandon its traditional strict product liability standard for design defect claims and replace it with section 2(b) of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which requires plaintiffs to prove the manufacturer’s foreseeability of harm, and prove the effectiveness of a reasonable alternative design in order to recover damages for product-caused injuries. See Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc. (FEDB-CV-060001768-S (Connecticut Supreme Court docket for Bifolck); see also Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability § 2(b) (Am. Law Inst.). They conclude their discussion herein.
This premium content is reserved for
Law Journal Press Subscribers.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
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.