How to Spot a Product Liability Claim
A product liability claim focuses on whether or not the product is defective. In automobile cases, the defective product could be the entire vehicle, or a component part such as the seat belt assembly or tires. Unfortunately, the average motorist has no idea how unprotected he will be in an accident as a driver or passenger in one of
these defective vehicles. Often, causes of action for product liability claims are hidden from the untrained eye. It is important to recognize possible defect claims in the motor vehicle accident cases. Any accident that involves paralysis, death, loss of limb, or brain damage should be analyzed for possible product liability claims.
Evolution of Trespass and Nuisance
A toxic tort is a civil wrong arising from exposure to a toxic substance, such as asbestos, radiation or a hazardous waste.1 Most toxic torts cases are brought under the common law trespass and nuisance causes of action. Although many plaintiffs often join common law claims with claims for potential recovery under federal environmental laws, the common law claims tend to provide more monetary damages, whereas the statutory claims may simply recoup cleanup costs.
Plaintiffs Perspective on Toxic Tort Litigation 2005
A toxic tort is a civil wrong arising from exposure to a toxic substance.3 Litigating such a case can be intimidating, because of the complex issues involved. Notwithstanding these highly technical issues, toxic tort cases contain themes that can be clear and understandable. Thus, to be effective, counsel should try to frame the debate in terms of these simple issues, to avoid overwhelming and confusing the jury. Lawyer Allan Kanner offers an analogy. On one hand, toxic tort lawyers are builders, compiling information to construct a case. On the other hand, they are sculptors, chipping away extraneous information that clouds the argument. “The key is to find the perfect balance between information and presentability.”
A Sure Way to Increase the Value of a Product Liabilty Case
A crucial issue in litigating a product liability action is whether the jury will hear evidence of other incidents involving the same or a similar product. “[T]he primary reason the evidence is so important is that it has high probative value and trustworthiness attached to it.”1 This article discusses similar acts, happenings, transactions or claims related to the facts involved in a dispute. In a product liability case, this includes other incidents, accidents or injuries caused by the same defect.
Admissibility of State and Federal Regulations
State and federal nursing home regulations can be regarded as quintessential guidelines for attorneys involved in nursing home litigation when it comes to establishing the standard of care. The ultimate goal, obviously, is to have regulations relevant to your case admitted into evidence as the accepted standard of care for the jury to apply to the facts. Achieving success in having the regulations admitted into evidence is not a simple task, but the following are some methods that have proved to be successful in the past:
Aggressive Discovery in Complex Product Liability Cases
Product liability refers to the legal liability of designers, manufacturers and sellers to compensate buyers, users, and even bystanders, for damages or injuries suffered because of defects in goods purchased. A tort (i.e. a civil wrong) which makes a manufacturer liable if his product has a defective condition that makes it unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.
Aggressive Discovery in the Auto Products Case
To be successful in any products liability case, the plaintiff must aggressively pursue discovery to prove his case and establish for the jury the manufacturers liability. When you consider that the defendant manufacturer has all the inside information regarding the product and has virtually unlimited resources to prepare a case srgainst you, there can be no question b ~thtsr t discovery is the most critical aspect of the plaintiffs case. The enly way for a plaintiff to level the playing field against the "mega-giant manufacturer" is to obtain critical information establishing the culpability of the manufacturer through the discovery process.
Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine Machine Guarding
Defectively designed machines account for some of the most horrific injuries sustained by workers. A common design defect is the absence or inadequacy of safety guards on workplace machinery. Employee exposure to unguarded or inadequately guarded machines is prevalent in many workplaces. Consequently, workers who operate and maintain machinery suffer approximately 18,000 amputations, lacerations, crushing injuries, and abrasions per year. Additionally, over 800 deaths per year can be attributed to machine related incidents.
Alabama Medical Malpractice Reformulated, How Ex Parte Healthsouth Affects our Practice
For the past few years I have been fortunate enough to focus my practice exclusively on the area of long-term care litigation. Having practiced in this area of medical liability throughout the southeast, I can safely say from experience that Alabama’s law in the area of long-term care litigation, and in medical liability litigation in general, ranks among the most confusing and complex areas of law in the region. Indeed, Alabama’s amalgam of both statutory and common law in the area of medical liability litigation create a quagmire in which an unsuspecting practitioner can easily become entrenched.
Annuity and Life Insurance Sales Practice Class Actions
The sale of various forms of annuity contracts as retirement and savings vehicles has been around for many years. Originally, Congress was faced with whether or not to include the regulation of annuities as investments under the Securities Act of 1933. Eventually Congress decided that with the wide regulation of insurers and banks for annuities they would be exempt from the 1933 Act.
