The birth of modern-day product liability law was arguably delivered in 1963 by the California Supreme Court in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 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.e., those closer to the ultimate purchaser of the product) often seek defense and indemnity from upstream participants.
- March 29, 2007Brian W. Fields
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 Greene v. A.P. Products, Ltd., 717 N.W.2d 855, reh'g denied, 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.
March 28, 2007James H. Rotondo, Robert E. Koosa, and James E. HennesseyNews about lawyers and law firms in the franchising industry.
March 28, 2007ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
March 28, 2007Charles MillerThis 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.
March 28, 2007ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Editor-in-Chief Stan Soocher tells you what's going on in the industry.
March 28, 2007Stan SoocherThe U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas decided that it lacked personal jurisdiction over comedian Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, in a suit filed over a segment in which a Texas resident appeared. Busch v. Viacom International Inc., 3:06-CV-0493-L. The Daily Show broadcast a parody of a dietary drink that TV evangelist Pat Robertson promoted. The Daily Show segment included a clip from Robertson's show The 700 Club in which plaintiff Phillip Busch, a user of the dietary drink, shook Robertson's hand. Busch filed claiming defamation and misappropriation of image in the Daily Show piece.
March 28, 2007ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |