Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Features

Exploring the Status of the Obvious Danger Doctrine in Failure-to-Warn Cases Image

Exploring the Status of the Obvious Danger Doctrine in Failure-to-Warn Cases

James H. Rotondo, Robert E. Koosa, & James E. Hennessey

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.

News Briefs Image

News Briefs

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.

Features

Movers & Shakers Image

Movers & Shakers

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

News about lawyers and law firms in the franchising industry.

Features

Court Watch Image

Court Watch

Charles Miller

Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.

Features

Q&A with Steven Toporoff, Franchise Program Coordinator, FTC Image

Q&A with Steven Toporoff, Franchise Program Coordinator, FTC

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

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.

Parent Disclosure Under the Amended FTC Rule: The Parent Exposed Image

Parent Disclosure Under the Amended FTC Rule: The Parent Exposed

John R. F. Baer

In the October/November 2004 Special Issue of <i>FBLA</i>, we speculated that if there was one group that may be unhappy about the Federal Trade Commission ('FTC') Staff Report's proposed revisions to the FTC Franchise Rule, it had to be the parents of franchisors (or maybe franchisors who have parents). Now that the FTC has released the final amended FTC Franchise Rule, we know that a parent's disclosure burden will be increased. One provision may have a profound effect on how certain franchise companies do business. Because there are some ambiguities in what is being required, it may be prudent for the FTC to clarify its intention in the Guidelines it plans to issue.

e-Disclosure After the FTC Rule Amendments Image

e-Disclosure After the FTC Rule Amendments

Lee Plave

Whatever qualms there may have been about e-disclosure should, with the release of the FTC's amended Franchise Rule, be resolved. Let the record be clear: The Federal Trade Commission ('FTC') has removed all doubt with respect to e-disclosure &mdash; it is now officially sanctioned. Whatever concern there may have been, at this stage, is a matter of history.

Features

Bit Parts Image

Bit Parts

Stan Soocher

Editor-in-Chief Stan Soocher tells you what's going on in the industry.

Features

Clause & Effect Image

Clause & Effect

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

What you need to know.

Features

Counsel Concerns Image

Counsel Concerns

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Cases of interest.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Coverage Issues Stemming from Dry Cleaner Contamination Suits
    In recent years, there has been a growing number of dry cleaners claiming to be "organic," "green," or "eco-friendly." While that may be true with respect to some, many dry cleaners continue to use a cleaning method involving the use of a solvent called perchloroethylene, commonly known as perc. And, there seems to be an increasing number of lawsuits stemming from environmental problems associated with historic dry cleaning operations utilizing this chemical.
    Read More ›
  • The Flight to Quality and Workplace Experience
    That the pace of change is "accelerating" is surely an understatement. What seemed almost a near certainty a year ago — that law firms would fully and permanently embrace work-from-home — is experiencing a seeming reversal. While many firms have, in fact, embraced hybrid operations, the meaning of hybrid has evolved from "office optional," to an average required 2 days a week, to now many firms coming out with four-day work week mandates — this time, with teeth.
    Read More ›
  • AI or Not To AI: Observations from Legalweek NY 2023
    This year at Legalweek, there was little doubt on what the annual takeaway topic would be. As much as I tried to avoid it for fear of beating the proverbial dead horse, it was impossible not to talk about generative AI, ChatGPT, and all that goes with it. Some fascinating discussions were had and many aspects of AI were uncovered.
    Read More ›
  • The Powerful Impact of The Non-Foreclosure Notice of Pendency
    RPAPL ' 1331 and RPAPL ' 1403 Notices of Pendency are requisite elements for foreclosing a mortgage. <i>See, Chiarelli v. Kotsifos</i>, 5 A.D.3d 345 (a notice of pendency is a prerequisite to obtaining a judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action); <i>Campbell v. Smith</i>, 309 A.D.2d 581, 582 (a notice of pendency is required in a foreclosure action under RPAPL Article 13). In contrast, an ex parte CPLR Article 65 Notice of Pendency (the "Notice") is not required but it is a significant tool in an action claiming title to, or an interest in or the use or enjoyment of, another's land. The filer does not have to make a meritorious showing or post a bond. Article 65 provides mechanisms for the defendant-owner to vacate the Notice that caused an unilaterally imposed restraint on its realty. But, recent case law establishes the near futility of such efforts if the plaintiff has satisfied the minimal statutory requisites for filing the Notice.
    Read More ›