Tendering Claims to Manufacturers, Suppliers
March 29, 2007
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.
Practice Tip: Sixth Circuit Rules on Privilege in Two Cases
March 29, 2007
The Sixth Circuit has recently handed down two opinions on attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege. These opinions are of special interest to product liability practitioners, experts who testify in product liability matters, and anyone else involved in matters where discovery of documents might be crucial.
Marketing Training for the Next Generation of Rainmakers
March 29, 2007
The practice of law has seen many changes in the past 10 years. The profession has changed to become more client focused, associates are entering at higher salaries, and firms are pressured to be more efficient. All this adds up to the necessity for new associates to be productive sooner — and that includes developing business. However, young lawyers do not learn how to develop clients during law school. They learn to research, cite cases, and think logically, but they do not learn the practical skill of getting and keeping clients. This must be taught by senior lawyers, outside consultants, or others responsible for training.
Exploring the Status of the Obvious Danger Doctrine in Failure-to-Warn Cases
March 28, 2007
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
March 28, 2007
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
