Features
Contaminated Food Scares Raise Myriad Insurance Issues
Three instances of contaminated food with potentially wide-ranging impacts have received national media attention in the past six months.
Features
Case Notes
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Features
The Consumer Expectation Test: Fostering UnreasonableExpectations of Safety
Part One of this series discussed the impact of consumer expectations with respect to electronic stability control systems in the auto industry. This month's installment addresses unreasonable expectations with respect to antilock braking systems.
Features
Tendering Claims to Manufacturers, Suppliers
The birth of modern-day product liability law was arguably delivered in 1963 by the California Supreme Court in <i>Greenman v. Yuba Power Products,</i> 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963). Today, product liability law is commonly understood to mean that all participants in the chain of distribution of a defective product are strictly liable for injuries caused by that product. Strict liability generally means that any seller in the distribution chain is liable if the product is defective, even if the seller was not responsible for making that product defective. There are a variety of different sellers in today's global economy that partially or completely assemble or manufacture their products and can be held responsible for defects even if not sued in the original action. Sellers in the distribution chain are vast and include manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers. Those lower in the distribution chain (<i>i.e.,</i> those closer to the ultimate purchaser of the product) often seek defense and indemnity from upstream participants.
Features
Exploring the Status of the Obvious Danger Doctrine in Failure-to-Warn Cases
Traditional tort law principles provide that product manufacturers and sellers have a duty to warn of hidden risks that pose a danger to product users. As a corollary, courts generally hold that manufacturers and sellers have no duty to warn consumers of obvious dangers inherent in the product. Consequently, most judges have left to the jury the question of whether the danger of injury from a product is obvious. Against this backdrop, a recent decision has cast doubt on the accepted notion that obviousness is necessarily a question for the jury. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Michigan held in <i>Greene v. A.P. Products, Ltd.</i>, 717 N.W.2d 855, <i>reh'g denied</i>, 720 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. 2006) that, as a matter of law, hair oil posed an open and obvious danger to consumers that negated any duty to warn that the product could kill if ingested or inhaled.
Features
Movers & Shakers
News about lawyers and law firms in the franchising industry.
Features
Court Watch
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Features
Q&A with Steven Toporoff, Franchise Program Coordinator, FTC
This is the conclusion of an interview with Steven Toporoff, Franchise Program Coordinator, Federal Trade Commission ('FTC') about the revisions to the Franchise Rule. Toporoff continues his remarks about earnings information contained in the New Rule, and he discusses how the FTC is reaching out to the franchise community and consumers in order to explain the provisions of the New Rule.
Features
Bit Parts
Editor-in-Chief Stan Soocher tells you what's going on in the industry.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis 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.Read More ›
- 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.Read More ›
- Players On the MoveA look at moves among attorneys, law firms, companies and other players in entertainment law.Read More ›
- The Stranger to the Deed RuleIn 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.Read More ›