In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On March 30, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:
Toshiba Recalls Laptop Computer Battery Packs Due to Burn and Fire Hazards
In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On March 21, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:
Panasonic Recalls Lithium-ion Laptop Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard
In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On March 15, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:
Franklin Fueling Systems Recalls Gas Station Hose/Swivel Fitting Sets Due to Fire, Explosion Hazards
In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On March 9, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:
In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On March 3, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:
Pelican Products Recalls Flashlights and Replacement Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard
By: Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and Michael J. Wolfer
In Tatham v. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. 2015), the Tennessee Supreme Court addressed whether intentional misconduct is a prerequisite to imposing sanctions for spoliation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that a finding of intentional misconduct is not a necessary prerequisite to imposing sanctions. Its presence, however, is a relevant factor in the totality of the circumstances to consider when determining whether to impose sanctions.
In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. The CPSC recently issued the following recall notices related to products that present fire hazards: