- Premises Liability: Do Open and Obvious Naturally Occurring Conditions Pose an Unreasonable Risk of Harm?
- The Borrowed Servant Doctrine – At What Point Will the General Employer’s Liability Be Severed?
- Texas Tort Claims Act: Are Physicians Independent Contractors or Employees?
- Diamond Offshore Services Ltd. v. Williams—Courts Must View Video Evidence Before Ruling on Issues of Admissibility
- Reservation of Rights Letter and the Insured
- Permissive Interlocutory Appeals
- Graves Amendment
- United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine: Expanding Control for the Purpose of Premises Liability Claims
- Potential Barriers and Limitations to Successful Cyber Subrogation
- What is Cyber Subrogation?
Showing 9 posts in Products Liability.
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 82.008: A Shield for Manufacturers in Design-Defect Causes of Action?
Enacted in 2003 as part of a legislative effort to shield manufacturers from liability in cases where they complied with all applicable federal safety standards, Section 82.008 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code ("Section 82.008") provides a rebuttable presumption for manufacturers who are defendants in a products liability design-defect suit. Read More ›
While the legislative purpose underpinning the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) urges flexible interpretation and application, the DTPA was neither intended to impose liability on upstream parties nor provide a separate cause of action for assignees and subrogees seeking to recover from large consumer businesses. The Texas Supreme Court has mandated a liberal construction of the DTPA to “protect consumers against false, misleading, and deceptive business practices, unconscionable actions, and breaches of warranty and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection.” However, the Legislature intended there to be limits on the DTPA, including its scope of liability and standing requirements. Read More ›
Nonmanufacturing sellers are not always exempt from liability of harm caused by defective products.
Generally, in Texas, a nonmanufacturing seller of a defective product is not liable for harm caused by that product. However, there is a provision that permits a plaintiff to proceed against a nonmanufacturing seller if the product's manufacturer is “not subject to the jurisdiction of the court.” Moreover, if “after service on a nonresident manufacturer... the manufacturer fails to answer or otherwise make an appearance in the time required by law, it is conclusively presumed... that the manufacturer is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court unless the seller is able to secure personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer in the action.” Read More ›
The Economic Loss Doctrine (“ELD”) has been adopted by a majority of states and jurisdictions. The ELD consists of three different views: 1) the traditional/majority (Texas); 2) intermediate (California); and 3) minority (Colorado). With regard to a product which damages itself and only itself, each rule has a different way of assigning liability and sometimes one view may rule a different way than another. Read More ›
An Overview of the Plaintiff’s Burden Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act
The Louisiana Products Liability Act ("LPLA"), establishes the means by which a plaintiff may recover damages caused by a manufacturer's product. Kennedy, John, Article: A primer on the Louisiana Products Liability Act., La. L. Rev. 565, 565 (1989). Under the LPLA, a plaintiff can maintain a valid cause of action if he establishes that a product is "unreasonably dangerous." Read More ›
Under the Texas Products Liability Act, Chapter 82 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (CPRC), manufacturers are required to provide defense and indemnity to innocent sellers of their products. This is true regardless of the specific claim against the seller, so long as the allegations arise out of a products liability action. The lone exception to this very broad indemnity obligation on manufacturers arises when the seller is not “innocent,” i.e., negligent or causes the injury by its own act or omission. Read More ›
A large loss investigation, conducted for the purpose of subrogation, may require following procedures and codes in many different areas: inspection, testing of evidence, and defective equipment to name a few. The organizations listed below are suggestions of places to begin when investigating the loss of a typical facility, such as a refinery or power plant. Read More ›
An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is a guarantee, implied by law, that is created when a seller recommends an item for a buyer’s specific need. In other words, when the seller knows of a specific use for which some item is being purchased by the buyer, the seller is guaranteeing the item it recommends is fit for that particular purpose. Read More ›
A toaster self-ignites, demolishing itself and the entire house in its fiery demise. A rouge propane grill explodes, leaving behind only a black, ashy burn mark on the patio. A single-seater airplane takes a nosedive and is now unrecoverable in its watery Pacific grave. Each of these products was defective- but how can you convince a jury to hold the product’s manufacturer strictly liable when there is not a shred of direct evidence?
“Defect” ipsa loquitor. Read More ›