Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
It is well known that the doctrine of strict liability imposes responsibility upon manufacturers without regard to their fault or the degree of care they may have exercised in designing their products. Yet, in some jurisdictions the law of strict liability is stricter than in others, and courts in these “strict-strict liability” jurisdictions may prohibit the employment of certain common defenses to product liability claims. Manufacturers that find themselves on the defense in such jurisdictions may face the unexpected and initially unpleasant news that the trial on the horizon really will be about the product, the whole product and nothing but the product, and that the sole question for the jury may be “can someone given 20/20 hindsight fathom a plausible way to make this product safer?” Such manufacturers will often find that what they were hoping to rely upon for the cornerstone of their defense ' explaining who, what, where, when, why and how from the company's perspective ' is not only irrelevant but also inadmissible at trial.
In this article, we ' two defense lawyers who practice regularly in the strict-strict liability state of Pennsylvania ' explore some of the roadblocks that the defense may encounter in trying a design defect case in such a jurisdiction. We use a recent case in which we successfully defended a forklift manufacturer against a design defect claim in Pennsylvania, Snyder v. Baker Material Handling Corp., January Term, 1999, No. 91 S 99 (Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania), verdict 6/6/03, to illustrate that one way for defendants to prevail in such a case is to turn the court's rulings limiting their evidence to their advantage. Embracing strict liability rather than bemoaning its severity will sometimes be a defendant's best trial tactic.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.