Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The first hurdle in a failure-to-warn case is the pre-emption doctrine. The FHSA pre-empts any state causes of action seeking to impose a different or more elaborate labeling requirement from that required by the Act. Milanese v. Rust-Oleum, 44 F.3d 104 (2nd Cir. 2001). Defendants often argue that where the product is covered by the FHSA, no lawsuit can be brought in a
failure-to-warn case. This is not true. The FHSA does not pre-empt all such claims; complaints that allege non-compliance with the Act are permitted and usually present a question of fact. Thus, the very first thing a plaintiff's lawyer must do is to decide whether or not the label that came with the substance ' if it has not already disappeared ' complies with the Act. If the label does comply, any failure-to-warn case is pre-empted. If the label does not comply (which is often the case), then the lawyer can bring a failure-to-warn case.
To determine whether or not the label is adequate, the lawyer must decide if it conspicuously states the 'principal hazards' and 'precautionary methods' the consumer must take to avoid the hazards. For example, in Milanese, supra, the plaintiff, while using a primer and paint, was burned when the primer vapors ignited and a flash fire erupted. The primer label contained the following warning: 'Danger, extremely flammable.' The paint can label said: 'Danger. Extremely flammable liquid and vapor. Vapors may cause flash fire …' Upon first reading, these might appear as sufficient warnings because the injury took place when the vapors ignited and a flash fire erupted; however, the plaintiff cleverly claimed that the primer can was misbranded because the principal hazard associated with the primer, that 'vapor may cause flash fire,' did not appear on the primer label although it did appear on the paint can label.
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.