Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Just a few months ago, the Supreme Court of California joined a number of states in recognizing that the “sophisticated user doctrine” is a valid defense against failure-to-warn product liability claims ' whether sounding in negligence or strict product liability. Johnson v American Standard, Inc., 179 P.3d 905 (Cal. 2008). The sophisticated user doctrine is grounded on the theory that a manufacturer or supplier has no duty to warn a user or purchaser when that user or purchaser is a “sophisticated user” ' one presumed already to be aware of the dangers ' because the failure to give a warning could not be the legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries or harm.
The sophisticated user doctrine has become a prevalent defense nationwide in product liability actions involving failure-to-warn claims. This article expounds upon recent cases that help to entrench the sophisticated user doctrine in many states' case law, to a full or limited degree. Finally, the article provides some pointers to help practitioners establish an evidentiary record supporting the defense.
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
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
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.
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.