Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Practice Tip: Recovering Under the Theory of Failure to Issue Post-Sale Warnings
Although a product may be reasonably safe when it is sold, a manufacturer that later learns of risks revealed by user operation may be held responsible for failure to issue post-sale warnings. The justification for a post-sale duty to warn arises from a manufacturer's unique and superior position to follow the use and adaptation of its products by consumers. The manufacturer is best placed to learn about post-sale defects or dangers discovered in the use of its products as compared with purchasers and users.
Although a manufacturer is generally not responsible for injuries caused by substantial alterations by a third party that renders the product unsafe, even where a substantial modification has been made, an injured plaintiff may claim a post-sale failure to warn. See Liriano v. Hobart, 92 NY2d 232, 677 NYS2d 764 (1998), 170 F3d 264 (2d Cir. 1999).
If the plaintiff's lawyer cannot find any evidence that the manufacturer knew of post-sale dangers or modifications, the plaintiff has not met its burden. The first place a practitioner should look to find prior complaints is the Web site of whichever governmental organization regulates the product. The site will generally point in the direction of a helpful source. For example, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has a fine library available to the public for automotive research. Even though a recall may not have been necessitated, NHTSA is still the place to find reports by displeased car owners. For drugs, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will have information on products taken off the market, as well as reports of adverse drug reactions, even if the product is still on the market.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?